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.