Comments on PowerPoint

My thoughts on "Education and the Proliferation of New (Old) Concepts"

            The essay “Education and the Proliferation of New (Old) Concepts” is an argumentative piece of literature that would have one believe that agrarianism is the solution to some of America’s “most vexing problems.” The authors also support the idea of a maximum wage and no growth economics. To be completely honest I do not even know where to begin with this essay. The authors present the idea that everything should be distributed equally amongst society, and that industrialism is bad for the world. In short, this is a terrible idea. This essay assumes that the world is full of hardworking nice people. I’m not sure where these authors grew up, but it must have been some sort of happy paradise. The world does not function this way, and an agrarian way of living would not work at all.

            Life is not fair. Everyone needs to come to accept that fact. If life was fair, everyone would live a healthy life and people would not get sick. Everyone would be of the same intelligence. Everyone would be beautiful. There would be no variation in skin color. Everyone would be almost exactly the same. There has to be a winner for there to be a loser. Hierarchies will always exist. Monkeys, wolves, and lions all have natural hierarchies. By extension, humans will always have those who are privileged and those who are not.

            Industrialism creates competition, and thus a better society. As a result of competition, new technology is created and used to make better products. If you were to distribute everything equally there would be no motivation to do challenging work. People set goals and strive to be better people because of competition. Why should someone work and study hard to become a computer engineer, when they could simply make the same amount of money as a waiter? If you are going to give everyone and equal amount of land just for being alive, why should they work at all? What would motivate someone to work 50 hours a week, when they can just receive free handouts? Simply put, with an agrarian lifestyle there would be no reason to attempt anything challenging. It would require everyone to get together and do their part to help the world, and that will never happen. People are lazy, and most will only do the bare minimum required. In summary, agrarianism is a concept that would only work in happy fairy tales, not the hard reality we live in.

           

Synthesis and Response to "Indigenous resistance and racist schooling on the borders of empires: Coast Salish cultural survival"

The article “Indigenous resistance and racist schooling on the borders of empires: Coast Salish cultural survival” is about the attempts of the United States and Canada to assimilate an Indian culture. The Coast Salish are an indigenous Indian culture that was unfortunately separated by the 49^th parallel. For some reason, the governments of both Canada and the United States decided that they wanted to stomp out the Indian tradition. To accomplish this both sides used the creation of schools as a method to change the way Coastal Salish children viewed the world in respect to their culture. The Canadian government chose to use residential schools to try to remap Coastal Salish traditions. In these schools the children were treated harshly by white classmates and teachers. They would be punished severely for any activity that was related to Coastal Salish tradition. The problem became more severe when a judge decided that the natives had laid claim to half of the fish in the area. This court decision led to the reallocation of fisheries, and an increased intolerance for the Coastal Salish people. Some of the native children decided to cross the border to attend the boarding schools the United states had created, other avoided school all together. The United States’ aforementioned boarding schools were created for the same reason as the Canadian schools. The biggest difference was that the boarding schools were exclusively for the Coastal Salish people. The level of racism was therefore reduced. However, the students still faced punishment for activities related to their culture.

Personally, I think the method that the United States used was much more effective, because of the reduced racism. While I agree with the method the U.S. chose, I do not agree with what they were doing. I think the whole situation can be summarized as another government overstep. The government was not within their rights to infringe on the culture and beliefs of the Coastal Salish. This nation was formed to remove the pressures of social culture, by allowing the people to choose for themselves what they wanted to believe or practice. The government has been continuing to grow in power, and has become increasingly more corrupted. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the government has the right to assimilate a culture, and thus destroy it. Corruption is the unfortunate side effect of power. The government fears any sort of retaliation and wants to prevent retaliation from occurring, so it will give itself more power to crush anything it thinks will do it harm. It is a fearful master, and will do anything to control its subjects.

The Meatrix

The meatrix is a very goofy video that explains the evils of factory farming. From an environmental standpoint, I think the site does a good job explaining what they are, and why they have potential health issues. That being said, I don't always think joking about a serious issue is a good idea. If you start making jokes about factory farming there is a chance that it will always be one. Nobody will take it seriously at all.
I have and always will believe that people should come first. If we were to stop factory farming, we would increase the cost of food and as a result, the standard of living would increase. Thousands of Americans go hungry everyday, and making food more expensive will only make the problem worse. An increased standard of living also negatively impacts the unemployment rate. While I do acknowledge that there are definite health issues that are involved with factory farming, I think they are a result of another problem(corporate lobbying). For the time being, I think the health risks are a necessary evil. They might make some one ill in the future, but the food created by factory farming will keep someone alive today.

Real Text Reading on Biotechnology

The debate for GM foods is not new to me and has often been brought up in my previous classes. I strongly belive that people should come first, not the environment. If we have the technology to create crops that have higher protein content or a higher yeild, we should use it. Almost every country in the world imports over 90% of their food, and the amount of farmland supplying that food is shrinking. If we do not use GM foods the world will starve. There is no way to justify letting people starve when we have the ability to feed them. Even if the modified food turns out to have negative effects later on in life, without that GM food they wouldnt make it to that point anyway. I also found it odd that the author of Real Texts suggests softening your arguements. Most people are stuck in their ways, and are not going to change their mind as a result of your persuasive essay. Using words that are less reassuring only weakens the chance that you will sway the few people who are unsure of their stance on the issue.

Synthesis of “EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Linked to Water Contamination”

           The article EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Linked to Water Contamination is about new evidence that might link fracking to water contamination. Fracking is the process of shooting hydraulic fluids into the ground to reach pockets of natural gas and oil. Fracking is the only way to reach these pockets, and is a fairly new process.

           The environmental consequences have been under investigation since the practice first began in 1940. Researchers from the EPA are now claiming that the practice is contaminating ground water with the hydraulic fluids it uses. The ground water of a small town in Pavillion, Wyoming has been found to contain 10 different contaminants, all of which are commonly used in fracking. The companies who use fracking to obtain oil and natural gas refuse to accept liability for the contamination. Instead they say that the hydraulic process would cause the fluids to seep down, not towards the surface. They also claim that the layers of the earth create a barrier to prevent the fluids from rising back to the earth.

            Before we stop the practice fracking, we first need to consider the consequences. If we illegalize fracking, we decrease the availability of natural gas and oil. That is a direct increase on the cost of a standard living. It would be more expensive to heat and power your home. Gas prices will also increase, which hurts transportation.  You also have to fire all of the people who work in that field. All of these factors would pile up on Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet. Without a doubt there would be an increase in unemployment and the homeless. The economy it’s currently in a very poor state, raising the unemployment rate only hurts the situation. Sure the environment might be healthier if we stopped fracking, but is a healthier environment worth damaging the economy and limiting our resources?

EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Linked to Water Contamination

Powerpoint or Paper?

There are many pros and cons to both writing a paper, and composing a power point. However after examining the facts, I think power points are easier to create, and are better suited to entertain an audience while informing them on a topic.  Power points are much easier to construct because you can include pictures and statistics to make points. They also allow you to write less because you don't have to have well thought out sentences or complete thoughts. I also think power points are more interesting to the reader or viewer, the pictures and graphs make the presentation more interesting than a regular paper. Even a well written paper can bore a reader and cause that reader to lose interest and stop reading. Papers require more thought and work, but in exchange you deliver more information. Papers can also be more difficult to organize and can seem choppy or inconsistent to a reader.

Destruction of Coral Reefs

The picture above shows what a healthy coral reef looks like, and then how it appears after it has been destroyed. Coral reefs are home to thousands of different fish, and those homes are being destroyed every day. Trawling is one of the major contributors to the destruction of the ocean's coral reefs. Trawling is a form of fishing where large nets are pulled behind boats to catch fish. Some of the nets have weights attached making them weight several tons. The nets get stuck on the reefs and then cause major damage to the reefs when they are pulled. What is even worse is that trawling does not need to be so destructive. By removing the weights trawling can be just as effective at a higher altitude, without such a huge impact on corral reefs. Coral reefs are being destroyed daily, and so are the species of fish that live within them.

Religion and the Environment

I believe that regardless of your position on religion, you should do your best to make decisions that will not harm the environment. It is very easy to see the relationship between religion and protecting an environment. Following a religion could have both a positive or a negative effect on a person's approach to protecting the environment. In general a religion provides a set of instructions to help followers live the way their creator intended them to. Most of the time these instructions are peaceful and pursue the protection of life. The article I read described ways different religions took the initiative to help their environment. For example, a baptist church in Malaysia collects recylcable goods and are then sold to consumers who will reuse them. The article also explains that religous groups are very effective in helping the environment beacuse of their strong motivation and belief system. This provides both a service to consumers and it helps keep the environment waste free. However on the opposite side of that you have religions that are very destructive in nature. Followers of these more extreme religions might have the exact oppostite reaction and act accordingly. I also think making such a strong connection between religion and environment would have a negative impact on people who do not follow a religion. This might cause people who choose to not follow a religion to rebel against the environmental movement entirely.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X11002789

Shit Yogis Say

After watching the video Shit Yogis Say, I’m not quite sure what thoughts are going through my head. It was sort of funny, and sort of annoying. This type of video has gone viral over the past few weeks, and to be honest I don’t think any of them are that funny.  It is very strange how society decides what is funny, in this case the video is supposed to be funny because it mocks a certain type of person. In today’s world funny is not actually funny unless it is offensive or insulting.

Response to Towards Ecopedagogy

           When you finish reading the well written and very persuasive Towards Ecopedagogy, you will react in one of two ways. You will either agree with his assertions that capitalism is evil, our environmental education is lacking, and our attempts at moving towards a sustainable lifestyle have failed. Or you will see the article as nothing more than Kahn’s own twisted opinion on what he believes to be wrong with our world, and how we should go about fixing it. After reading no more than the first few paragraphs, I had decided on the second option.

            The first problem Kahn brings to our attention is the apparent conflict between capitalism and the environment. He presents the idea that capitalism destroys the environment by promoting competition. While in some ways this may be true, I would like to see anyone suggest a more effective economic system. Without a doubt the United States is the most productive, and wealthy country in the world. The poor within the U.S. are much wealthier than the poor of any other country. A common argument is that it is not fair that the wealthy have so much, and the poor have so little. The sad fact of the matter is that life is not fair. The environment that Kahn loves so much is testament to that fact. If life was fair everyone would get cancer, nobody would die young during a natural disaster, and everyone would be of equal intelligence. It is unfortunate that the environment is being punished to support the human population, but it is something that can be aided through technology. The competition created by capitalism drives the advancement of technology. No other economic system has created so much in so little time. As you can see capitalism is not just the destroyer of the environment, but also its last hope.

            After attacking our economic system, Kahn moves on to our educational system. He begins by listing the percentage of Americans that support the idea of environmental education programs. Oddly enough, his next paragraph includes additional statistics showing how uneducated Americans are about the environment. It is a terrible idea to support your argument for educational reform with studies on American support, and then demonstrate the naivety of the people studied.  The Zoo School in Minnesota is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Encouraging students to explore their impact on the world around them through their interaction with animals in a zoo is a wonderful way to encourage an environmentally friendly lifestyle. Kahn’s critique of the Zoo School is extreme. He believes it is a step in the right direction, but is far from where it needs to be. However, the school is already pioneering the way for other schools to follow. It is silly to expect a school to make a huge step in so little time, without alienating other school systems. Opening many schools with the same curriculum as the Zoo school would have a much larger impact than having just one school that does everything right.

            Another issue Kahn bring to our attention, is turning environmental education into sustainable development. He passes of global attempts at planning for sustainable development as a sham aimed at helping corporate and government relations. Sadly, creating a sustainable lifestyle is virtually impossible with today’s technology, and technology is the only way to obtain sustainability. Quite simply, people will not change for the good of the environment if it means giving up a more comfortable lifestyle. The human race is selfish and will always be selfish. Educating the public on environmental issues is simple in comparison to getting them to take action. Any sort of law passed by the government forcing the world to change, will only result in conflict and violence.

            The world is currently in a bad place. We consume our resources faster than they can be replenished while our population grows exponentially. The only way to relieve the strain we have placed on the environment and begin to repair the damage we have done, is through the advancement of technology. Fortunately competition created by capitalism pushes for the fastest technological advancement possible.

Contaminated Water

A large problem that many people face today is not necessarily getting water, but finding clean water. Over 1 billion people live without clean drinking water because of things like pollution from developing countries. Sometime in mid-January a large amount of cadmium was accidentally spilled into Longjiang River in China. Officials have stated the the amount of cadmium now in the water is at 5 times the legal limit. This poses a serious health issue because cadmium is a known carcinogen. The source of the spill has been traced to a mining company that refines zinc ore. Cadmium is one of the toxic byproducts of smelting zinc. Over 3.2 million people in south China are now using bottled water for their source of freshwater while the government attempts to clean the spill. Having limited access to fresh drinking water is a huge problem that is only magnified through pollution from industries. When people cannot find clean drinking water, they will resort to using contaminated water just to stay alive. The problem with this is the number of waterborne diseases that can be contracted through drinking bad water. According to the WHO waterborne illness is the world’s number one killer.

Read more about the cadmium spill here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/china-cadmium-spill-threatens-city-water-supplies-rare-earths-mining-suspected-cause/2012/01/30/gIQAmb2hbQ_story.html

The New River: The most polluted river in the United States

After doing a quick search for videos relating to water pollution, I found what I consider to be the most disgusting looking river I have ever seen. I was even more amazed that the river runs through part of the United States. The New River is widely considered the most polluted river within the United States. The river is so contaminated that when a technician draws water for testing, he or she wears two pairs of gloves. Most of the pollution comes from Mexican manufacturing plants and untreated sewage that is dumped into the river. The river is filled with dangerous toxins that can cause tuberculosis, typhus, encephalitis, and other potentially fatal diseases. What makes this even more disturbing is that many illegal immigrants use the river to get past the border patrol, because patrols will not enter the water. To make matters worse the exposed immigrants will often get jobs in the food industry. Combine this with the fact that many do not seek proper medical help when they are ill, and you have the recipe for disaster. This river is a breeding ground for terrible new strains of disease that could devastate the human population. It is startling that only in 2005 did the government intervene and begin building a water treatment plant to help clean the water.

Find more information at: http://www.calexiconewriver.com/history/

Anitbiotic Resistance

McKibben Haiku

Small local farming
Large Government Subsidies
Cannot co-exist

Google Alerts,Twitter, and Sustainability

           Never in a million years would I have pictured myself creating a twitter account. I used to laugh at all my friends that had them. However, after sucking it up and creating one, I can see how following certain groups could be very informing. Google Alerts is proving to be even more useful. I have always had a strong interest in pathology, and being able to simply log in and have all the latest news on the subject is great.  On twitter, I chose to follow NCSU Sustainability. They provide many ways we can help make our environment sustainable. A recent tweet provided the instructions on how to weatherize your dorm to save electricity.          
           After reading about sustainability I have learned a few things. What I believe to be one of the more important issues is the loss of biodiversity. Our current lifestyle is having a huge impact on the world’s ecosystems, 15 ecosystems are currently in rapid decline, while only 4 have improved. Another problem that I have read about is the rapid switch to industrialization, and how it destroys farmland. With technology becoming more and more prevalent we have a shrinking amount of available farmland. Most countries import 90% of the food they eat, and export little food themselves. This is a trend that has to stop if we wish to sustain ourselves on this earth.

Overpopulation and Food Sustainability

A growing source of concern for our current population is food availability. Most countries today rely heavily on importing foods, and very few countries export food. The growing number of importers and the shrinking number of those able to export threatens the sustainability of our lifestyle. Today, world hunger is at the highest level it has ever been. Over 1 billion people go hungry every day, and remain undernourished. A major cause of this is the rapid industrialization of a heavily populated country. As a population begins to industrialize more land that was once used for agriculture becomes allocated to creating buildings and roads. This means that the country must import an increasingly large amount of food to compensate.

If we were to live in “island civilizations” the area for industrialization would be much smaller, and so would the number of mouths to feed.  A smaller amount of people would be much less draining on the environment, making the population much more sustainable. Reduced industrialization also means fewer roads and buildings need to be built, and as a result the environment is not destroyed.

Outgrowing the Earth: The Food Security Challenge in an Age of Falling Water Tables and Rising Temperatures

Summary and Respone to "Island Civilization" by Roderick Frazier Nash

In the essay Island Civilization: A Vision for Human Occupancy of Earth, Robert Frazier Nash proposes his plan for the distant fourth millennium. He begins his essay with powerful words on the destructive behavior of humans, stating that since the very beginning humans viewed the wilderness as something that must be controlled. To support his argument, Nash points out that in the Bible the “wilderness” was land cursed by God, and humans were banished there as punishment. He then continues to point out how mankind built fences and roads to contain the wild, and that it was only when the United States Census claimed that there was no longer a frontier left that humans discovered the damage they had caused. Following this revelation the human population sought to right their wrongs in different ways. The government provided relief through the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 and that of the Endangered Species Act in 1973. Various authors that supported environmentalism wrote books on things like restricting one’s own freedom for the good of the environment.

After completing his description of how mankind destroyed the wilderness and their scramble to rectify the problem, Nash goes on to explain the 3 possible outcomes for mankind. The first outcome is referred to as the wasteland scenario. In this future the world has exhausted all of its resources and become a desolate wasteland that can support very little life. The garden scenario is the second possible outcome and under it humans will have created technology capable of controlling nature, at the cost of diversity. The final outcome is future primitive. This seems to be a variation of the future Nash would like to see. In this scenario humans would revert back to hunter gatherers and shun technology, allowing the Earth to gradually return to its previous state.

The final pages of Nash’s paper explain his idea for the future. His plan is to restrict the human population to 1.5 billion, and to make self-sustaining “islands” of civilization. These civilizations would be clusters of the population, and quite similar to cities. His plan also relies on advanced technology that would not harm the Earth and that the “islands” remain isolated from each other. All food production, manufacturing, sanitation, and other services would take place directly within the civilization.

I personally believe that Nash’s plan for an island utopia sounds wonderful, but is not even close to being realistic. My first major problem with his plan is the reduction of the population. He proposes cutting the current population to 1.5 billion. In order for something like this to happen only a fourth of the current population would be allowed to reproduce one time. Most people want a family, and a family includes children. If you start denying three fourths of the world the right to have a child, you’re going to have a major problem. Any attempt to limit the world wide population through regulations will undoubtedly end in violence and destruction. Thankfully regulation on such a large scale would be impossible.

Another problem I have with this utopia stems from the reduced population. One of the results of a population that has been limited over a short time is a smaller gene pool. People would begin to look very similar, and soon diversity would be almost nonexistent amongst humans. In addition to this reduction in diversity, a small gene pool also leaves the human population very vulnerable. Any sort of viral epidemic could wipeout the human race, simply because immunity would be unlikely. If you don’t believe an epidemic is capable of killing so many, just take a look at our history. Scientists estimate that smallpox killed around 1 billion people, and there is still no cure for the disease. The best scientists could do was create a vaccine. Another epidemic that you are probably familiar with is the black plague, which killed at least a third of the European population.

It is also suggested that a person would be able to live in the “island” of their choosing. This can only result in conflict over who would get to live where. You could base it on social status, but then you create class warfare. Those that were less fortunate might attack another more fortunate civilization. This would only lead to more destruction of the environment.

In short, Nash’s dream world sounds amazing. It is an island of peace and happiness. Who wouldn’t want to have all the resources you need within a 100 mile radius? Unfortunately it is nothing more than an unobtainable dream, and any attempt to make it a reality will result in more chaos.