Oh my Gawd, Joe, why couldn't you have given this lecture at the beginning of the semester? Ever since 2000 when I started going to Sierra I've been nothing but confused and lost as to what I want to do with my life. I've never had a helpful counseling experience, and no other methods of figuring out what I'd like to do have panned out. Your speech gave me so much encouragement. I haven't had a chance to check out the sites you gave us, or the handouts, what with finals and all, but there's nowhere else I can really turn to. I've always been indecisive. I've loved every class I've ever attended, and have been good at every job I've ever applied myself to. But being versatile has hurt me in that I don't know what I really want to do. I like everything, but haven't found anything I truly love. Some of the suggestions you gave out in class got me thinking.
In particular was your speech about getting into a career that you're happy with. I mean, something that benefits society rather than just yourself. Being able to live and finish each day knowing that you've done good for the world and have something to show for yourself. Something ethical, something that benefits mankind, something that has a future. Whether its a green collar job, helping out with education, or working for the Peace Corps, something you can be proud to tell your friends and family.
Mind you finals are a bit stressful for this week, so I still doubt I could concentrate much on doing a self survey to find my true purpose right now, but just five more days and I'll be all over it.
Thank you Joe Medeiros!
Sunday, May 3, 2009
If you're not for Zero Waste, how much waste are you for?
Gary Liss has to be one of the most animate speakers we have had this semester. Like a salesman who thinks he's sold his most expensive product, he finished the class with the biggest grin I think he could possibly muster.
That doesn't say much for his taste in clothing, though.
When I first saw Mr. Liss my eyes fell on his dirty shoes. If you're going to wear a suit, at least wear decent dress shoes. I know it sounds miniscule and unimportant, but I was raised that first impressions can't be taken back, and Gary didn't start off well in the appearance department. His suit also just didn't fit him well. His pants were saggy and he kept pulling them back up to his waist. At least tighten your belt a notch. And he smelled like his jacket and trousers had been in a dry cleaner bag for a year. When he pulled out a comb in the middle of class it occurred to me he could just do for a haircut instead.
Again, I know, miniscule and unimportant, but I remember his wardrobe vividly, and it detracted from his speech a bit.
All that said, his topic of Zero Waste was inspiring. This weekend I went down to the coast for my field project, to Mt. Tamalpais, and drove by a sea of those green waste garbage containers. It must have been trash day, or maybe tomorrow. These were the green, blue, and black containers. Very picturesque, although I would imagine few visitors to the city would know exactly what they were for or what their purpose was other than to dispose of garbage.
Zero Waste should be how we do business. Native Americans survived for thousands of years doing it just fine, who are we to continue to screw it up when we know we can clean it up instead? Mind you I'm no economist, or accountant, but it seems pretty clear to me that companies could start going Zero Waste today and not need to look back. And not just companies, but communities, too. Even though I live with three of the laziest roomates imaginable, and probably the most wasteful to boot, if our entire neighborhood got in the mood I'm sure they wouldn't want to be the only wasteful ones.
Great speech Gary, but next time, clean up the suit ;)
That doesn't say much for his taste in clothing, though.
When I first saw Mr. Liss my eyes fell on his dirty shoes. If you're going to wear a suit, at least wear decent dress shoes. I know it sounds miniscule and unimportant, but I was raised that first impressions can't be taken back, and Gary didn't start off well in the appearance department. His suit also just didn't fit him well. His pants were saggy and he kept pulling them back up to his waist. At least tighten your belt a notch. And he smelled like his jacket and trousers had been in a dry cleaner bag for a year. When he pulled out a comb in the middle of class it occurred to me he could just do for a haircut instead.
Again, I know, miniscule and unimportant, but I remember his wardrobe vividly, and it detracted from his speech a bit.
All that said, his topic of Zero Waste was inspiring. This weekend I went down to the coast for my field project, to Mt. Tamalpais, and drove by a sea of those green waste garbage containers. It must have been trash day, or maybe tomorrow. These were the green, blue, and black containers. Very picturesque, although I would imagine few visitors to the city would know exactly what they were for or what their purpose was other than to dispose of garbage.
Zero Waste should be how we do business. Native Americans survived for thousands of years doing it just fine, who are we to continue to screw it up when we know we can clean it up instead? Mind you I'm no economist, or accountant, but it seems pretty clear to me that companies could start going Zero Waste today and not need to look back. And not just companies, but communities, too. Even though I live with three of the laziest roomates imaginable, and probably the most wasteful to boot, if our entire neighborhood got in the mood I'm sure they wouldn't want to be the only wasteful ones.
Great speech Gary, but next time, clean up the suit ;)
Friday, May 1, 2009
Extra Credit - Under Our Skin
Last night I went to see that documentary on Lyme disease, "Under Our Skin", and I have to say it probably earned the distinction of being the creepiest show I've seen on campus. Easily 15 minutes into it I kept scratching my leg, neck, or arm, imagining some tick crawling through my hair. The documentary was around an hour and a half long, and at times I was squirming so much my chair would creak audibly, which made me even more nervous. The student sitting next to me would repeatedly shake her leg up and down as well, and reajust in her seat from time to time. She must have been as uncomfortable as I was.
And that had to be the intention of the filmakers. I dreamt about events from the movie in my sleep, and couldn't stop talking about it at work today. If their purpose was to be to spread the word about the dangers of Lyme disease, they achieved their goal with me.
For those that didn't go, the film wasn't just 24-hour footage of ticks crawling over people biting them in their sleep. It followed several people in their fight to overcome the harsh symptoms of living with late stage Lyme disease. Most of these people were nothing more than average Americans, regular folk from all walks of life, young and old. One couple, I believe their name was Jenn and Sean, although I couldn't take notes in the darkness, had it particularly rough. Jenn was filmed in so much pain she could barely control her body, went through seizures, had to inject her own antibiotics through a catheter, and all the while doctors were saying there was nothing wrong with her.
The film touched on the troubling realities of insurance providers refusing to pay for treatments or canceling full coverage all together for people that needed them to pay for the thousands of dollars of medical bills they accrued. It linked together corrupt doctors to national guidelines for treating the disease that insurance providers would reference in court cases. One doctor who represented insurance companies would claim in an interview that there was no such epidemic of Lyme disease, while another would be asked the same questions and say its unmistakable. Although the filmakers likely tried to skew some of these interviews to help present their cause, it was hard for me to find much fault in what was said by both sides.
The overall feeling portrayed about the plight of people with Lyme disease was grim. Doctors that legitimately agree to help people are few and far between, and research is lacking in the field for effective treatments. Some people have lived with pain and other symptoms for 15 years or more, and several have died. Babies would either be miscarried or born with physical deformaties. There seemed to be a glimmer of hope at the end, though, that the corrupt financial aspects of curing Lyme disease and the lack of knowledge on the subject were finally being dealt with.
Despite the overall creepiness feeling, I thoroughly recommend you all to go watch this movie. I think they said it would be out in theatres in a couple months, hopefully nation-wide. At work today it was funny; everyone I talked to about the disease seemed to know everything the movie said was uncommon knowledge. Most people I talked to knew somebody living with Lyme disease or someone who had contracted it in the past. Maybe it is more of an epidemic after all.
And that had to be the intention of the filmakers. I dreamt about events from the movie in my sleep, and couldn't stop talking about it at work today. If their purpose was to be to spread the word about the dangers of Lyme disease, they achieved their goal with me.
For those that didn't go, the film wasn't just 24-hour footage of ticks crawling over people biting them in their sleep. It followed several people in their fight to overcome the harsh symptoms of living with late stage Lyme disease. Most of these people were nothing more than average Americans, regular folk from all walks of life, young and old. One couple, I believe their name was Jenn and Sean, although I couldn't take notes in the darkness, had it particularly rough. Jenn was filmed in so much pain she could barely control her body, went through seizures, had to inject her own antibiotics through a catheter, and all the while doctors were saying there was nothing wrong with her.
The film touched on the troubling realities of insurance providers refusing to pay for treatments or canceling full coverage all together for people that needed them to pay for the thousands of dollars of medical bills they accrued. It linked together corrupt doctors to national guidelines for treating the disease that insurance providers would reference in court cases. One doctor who represented insurance companies would claim in an interview that there was no such epidemic of Lyme disease, while another would be asked the same questions and say its unmistakable. Although the filmakers likely tried to skew some of these interviews to help present their cause, it was hard for me to find much fault in what was said by both sides.
The overall feeling portrayed about the plight of people with Lyme disease was grim. Doctors that legitimately agree to help people are few and far between, and research is lacking in the field for effective treatments. Some people have lived with pain and other symptoms for 15 years or more, and several have died. Babies would either be miscarried or born with physical deformaties. There seemed to be a glimmer of hope at the end, though, that the corrupt financial aspects of curing Lyme disease and the lack of knowledge on the subject were finally being dealt with.
Despite the overall creepiness feeling, I thoroughly recommend you all to go watch this movie. I think they said it would be out in theatres in a couple months, hopefully nation-wide. At work today it was funny; everyone I talked to about the disease seemed to know everything the movie said was uncommon knowledge. Most people I talked to knew somebody living with Lyme disease or someone who had contracted it in the past. Maybe it is more of an epidemic after all.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Happy Birthday Earth! You don't look a day over 4 billion
This Earth Day was probably the most involved I've ever been in the event. I do have this class to thank for that, but I've always observed it in one way or another. This year I actually got my three other roomates to agree to pick up a free lightbulb from Home Depot. It's about the most I could ask from them. I continued with my vegan dieting, save for some crickets I ate, and made the subject of the Earth my topic of conversation with whatever friends I happened to encounter.
(If you couldn't tell by that last little line, I was part of the group that researched and presented the Edible Insects booth for Earth Day. Some of the most fun I've ever had on a class project!)
I think Earth Day is a good thing. People I talk to dislike how commercialized it's become, like Christmas or Easter, but is it really bad to buy green? And this economy can use all the stimulus it can get. Buying Chinese toys made of plastic and which will probably get less than a month's use out of seems counter-productive to grabbing a cloth grocery bag, a flourescent lightbulb, or a reuseable water bottle. Earth Day is also something the whole planet can celebrate. You can't say that about any of the religious holidays.
Is Earth Day necessary? I'll say yes. For now. In a perfect world everyone would be aware of the plight of the environment and global climate change, but nothing's ever perfect, and public awareness is biased by the constant presence of the media. When you have schools promoting Earth Day, children get exposed to something they might not otherwise learn about. There are parents today that don't have time to teach their children anything, let alone that our ecosystems are disappearing. And when those children go home and tell their parents what they did that day in school, maybe the parents will learn a thing or two.
Let's hope that some day Earth Day disappears, but only because we've started treating every day, like Earth Day.
(If you couldn't tell by that last little line, I was part of the group that researched and presented the Edible Insects booth for Earth Day. Some of the most fun I've ever had on a class project!)
I think Earth Day is a good thing. People I talk to dislike how commercialized it's become, like Christmas or Easter, but is it really bad to buy green? And this economy can use all the stimulus it can get. Buying Chinese toys made of plastic and which will probably get less than a month's use out of seems counter-productive to grabbing a cloth grocery bag, a flourescent lightbulb, or a reuseable water bottle. Earth Day is also something the whole planet can celebrate. You can't say that about any of the religious holidays.
Is Earth Day necessary? I'll say yes. For now. In a perfect world everyone would be aware of the plight of the environment and global climate change, but nothing's ever perfect, and public awareness is biased by the constant presence of the media. When you have schools promoting Earth Day, children get exposed to something they might not otherwise learn about. There are parents today that don't have time to teach their children anything, let alone that our ecosystems are disappearing. And when those children go home and tell their parents what they did that day in school, maybe the parents will learn a thing or two.
Let's hope that some day Earth Day disappears, but only because we've started treating every day, like Earth Day.
Extra Credit - Cleanup the American River
Saturday morning, at a quarter to 8, I arrived at the North Fork of the American River in Auburn, down that windy valley off of Highway 49. There were already maybe some 50 people gathered, and despite the chill everyone was smiling and active. I didn't want to just stand around and do nothing, so I offered to help finish setting up the volunteer booth and all the handouts they were, well, handing out, to people. After about maybe 30 min everyone was instructed to grab a trash-picker-upper-thingy and a couple bags and proceed under the bridge.
After a bit of a lengthly safety meeting and upcoming announcements chat we were OFF! Racing through the canyon at top speed, our trash-grabbers flailing about with lightning refle... oh, wait, nevermind... I forgot, my trash collecting began with grabbing dozens of cigarette butts lying beneath our very feet! They were everywhere. Some pushed into the earth, some hidden under rocks, and some just lying about. I even found a fully wrapped cigar! By and large these little scraps of garbage were the most numerous all up and down the river. More so than bottles, cans, or plastic bags.
But the most surprising finds were the biggest ones. We found shopping carts, wooden pallets, tires and bicycle parts, but we actually found the remains of an old car, too. Heavily rusted, mostly buried, and scattered over several hundred square yards was the frame, gas tank, roll cage, center console, steering wheel, ashtray, and 8-track tape player of some unknown make and model. We had to shovel out the frame, roll-cage, and gas tank, and it took three of us to carry the dang things over to where the Park Service could pick it up with their trucks. It became almost like our trophy for the day, sitting there drying in the sun for all to see.
I actually ended up staying until noon. They served us lunch and handed out little freebies for showing up. I got a water bottle, a loaf of bread, a t-shirt, a hat, and a fancy certificate saying I performed 4 hours of community service. The whole day actually turned out to be pretty fun.
But driving away I remembered something someone had told me earlier that day. This cleanup is performed twice a year: during spring and fall. Despite everything we picked up Saturday, the spring cleanup is usually easier than the fall. Summer is when swimmers bring their picnic lunches and leave behind cans, bottles, and wrappers. And cars, apparently. If it only took us 4 hours to pick up everything this time, and the river was cleaned up just 6 months ago, how much more garbage would be left 6 months from now?
It's kind of depressing, really. And there were plenty of signs citing the $1000 littering fine. I asked if garbage cans could be brought down to the river and chained up. At least then some of the larger litter would be disposed of. But the answer was kind of sobering: there just isn't any money for it. You need to pay someone to empty the cans, and you need to pay for the cans in the first place. Even if it was in the makes, the river doesn't stay at the same level all throughout the year. The last thing you want is a trash can carried off by the water, or its contents flushed away.
And that's why you have what we had Saturday. It was good to see so many people there for a good cause. I'll probably make a note in my planner to attend again later in the year. You all should, too =)
After a bit of a lengthly safety meeting and upcoming announcements chat we were OFF! Racing through the canyon at top speed, our trash-grabbers flailing about with lightning refle... oh, wait, nevermind... I forgot, my trash collecting began with grabbing dozens of cigarette butts lying beneath our very feet! They were everywhere. Some pushed into the earth, some hidden under rocks, and some just lying about. I even found a fully wrapped cigar! By and large these little scraps of garbage were the most numerous all up and down the river. More so than bottles, cans, or plastic bags.
But the most surprising finds were the biggest ones. We found shopping carts, wooden pallets, tires and bicycle parts, but we actually found the remains of an old car, too. Heavily rusted, mostly buried, and scattered over several hundred square yards was the frame, gas tank, roll cage, center console, steering wheel, ashtray, and 8-track tape player of some unknown make and model. We had to shovel out the frame, roll-cage, and gas tank, and it took three of us to carry the dang things over to where the Park Service could pick it up with their trucks. It became almost like our trophy for the day, sitting there drying in the sun for all to see.
I actually ended up staying until noon. They served us lunch and handed out little freebies for showing up. I got a water bottle, a loaf of bread, a t-shirt, a hat, and a fancy certificate saying I performed 4 hours of community service. The whole day actually turned out to be pretty fun.
But driving away I remembered something someone had told me earlier that day. This cleanup is performed twice a year: during spring and fall. Despite everything we picked up Saturday, the spring cleanup is usually easier than the fall. Summer is when swimmers bring their picnic lunches and leave behind cans, bottles, and wrappers. And cars, apparently. If it only took us 4 hours to pick up everything this time, and the river was cleaned up just 6 months ago, how much more garbage would be left 6 months from now?
It's kind of depressing, really. And there were plenty of signs citing the $1000 littering fine. I asked if garbage cans could be brought down to the river and chained up. At least then some of the larger litter would be disposed of. But the answer was kind of sobering: there just isn't any money for it. You need to pay someone to empty the cans, and you need to pay for the cans in the first place. Even if it was in the makes, the river doesn't stay at the same level all throughout the year. The last thing you want is a trash can carried off by the water, or its contents flushed away.
And that's why you have what we had Saturday. It was good to see so many people there for a good cause. I'll probably make a note in my planner to attend again later in the year. You all should, too =)
Extra Credit - The John Muir Experience
I went to the "John Muir: Among the Animals" performance by Lee Stetson on Friday night, and I enjoyed every minute of it. To give a visual of the scene, the stage was set up with the props of a 19th century living room: wood stove, leather luggage, potted plants here and there, an old wooden dresser, a hat rack, a woven rug, and in the center of it all a wooden chair with a footstool and a loaf of bread.
This chair was what Stetson would routinely sit down in and get up out of with shaky legs and arms. The performance was believable. He would grab a cup of water, move around and read from various letters or articles, and all while looking for his lost set of housekeys. The audience was portrayed as being a housesitter to which "Muir" was giving us detail on feeding his cat, watering his plants, and telling us of his neighbors. And while waiting for a friend to pick him up, he told us of his travels to kill the time.
The stories themselves weren't of any sort you would hear today, and the characters he described were different from any movie I've watched. The biggest difference being the viewpoint presented - that of a man from the 1800's. It's hard to describe, but just how he spoke to the animals in his stories like they were people, calling a rattlesnake "embarrassed" to be found by him, or the emotions attributed to all the wild animals he came across, it was not as people today act.
Or maybe what really struck me off cue was his description of the wilderness itself some 150 years ago. Especially the Passenger Pigeon. The swarms of millions that could be struck from the sky by a simple pole. And I didn't catch it until the end, but during the play, if he ever referenced something in despair, he said the words "Oh, Martha". It gave me chills when he read the last article of the night, which reported that "Martha", the last female Passenger Pigeon alive in captivity, had just died. And here I thought Martha was his deceased wife.
Reading the flyer, apparently Lee Stetson does a few other plays as well, and three involving different times in Muir's life. I think I'll keep an eye out for them in the future =)
This chair was what Stetson would routinely sit down in and get up out of with shaky legs and arms. The performance was believable. He would grab a cup of water, move around and read from various letters or articles, and all while looking for his lost set of housekeys. The audience was portrayed as being a housesitter to which "Muir" was giving us detail on feeding his cat, watering his plants, and telling us of his neighbors. And while waiting for a friend to pick him up, he told us of his travels to kill the time.
The stories themselves weren't of any sort you would hear today, and the characters he described were different from any movie I've watched. The biggest difference being the viewpoint presented - that of a man from the 1800's. It's hard to describe, but just how he spoke to the animals in his stories like they were people, calling a rattlesnake "embarrassed" to be found by him, or the emotions attributed to all the wild animals he came across, it was not as people today act.
Or maybe what really struck me off cue was his description of the wilderness itself some 150 years ago. Especially the Passenger Pigeon. The swarms of millions that could be struck from the sky by a simple pole. And I didn't catch it until the end, but during the play, if he ever referenced something in despair, he said the words "Oh, Martha". It gave me chills when he read the last article of the night, which reported that "Martha", the last female Passenger Pigeon alive in captivity, had just died. And here I thought Martha was his deceased wife.
Reading the flyer, apparently Lee Stetson does a few other plays as well, and three involving different times in Muir's life. I think I'll keep an eye out for them in the future =)
Monday, April 20, 2009
ANWR uncovered... well, not yet at least.
During the election last year was when I first became aware of the issue revolving around the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I did my homework then. Whenever I got stuck in a political debate I had my figures down, and watching the recording of Joe Medeiros brought back memories of debates past. It's always nice to hear your viewpoints echoed by someone so knowledgeable.
The whole speech pretty much hit the nail on the head: 9-12 months of supply and somewhere around a decade before we could benefit from it. And we would basically be destroying one of the most pristine environments left on earth, even if it is only active for 3ish months out of the year. I didn't know this area of the arctic was devoid of invasive species. I'm all for keeping it that way.
One question I still have, although I hope I never learn the answer to, is what impact this development would ultimately have on all the species that reside or migrate there. There is no question in my mind we would lose some, if not most, but I'm actually curious for the Porcupine Herd in particular. Would a decade of industrial development in their breeding grounds force the herd into extinction? The average lifespan of a caribou in the wild is only 8-10 years. If this oil development stresses the herd too much, I can't imagine a better scenario for them.
All in all, great lecture. I'm never let down by Mr. Medeiros, and the majority of the speakers this semester have been great. It's hard to believe we're almost done!
The whole speech pretty much hit the nail on the head: 9-12 months of supply and somewhere around a decade before we could benefit from it. And we would basically be destroying one of the most pristine environments left on earth, even if it is only active for 3ish months out of the year. I didn't know this area of the arctic was devoid of invasive species. I'm all for keeping it that way.
One question I still have, although I hope I never learn the answer to, is what impact this development would ultimately have on all the species that reside or migrate there. There is no question in my mind we would lose some, if not most, but I'm actually curious for the Porcupine Herd in particular. Would a decade of industrial development in their breeding grounds force the herd into extinction? The average lifespan of a caribou in the wild is only 8-10 years. If this oil development stresses the herd too much, I can't imagine a better scenario for them.
All in all, great lecture. I'm never let down by Mr. Medeiros, and the majority of the speakers this semester have been great. It's hard to believe we're almost done!
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Ray Darby, the "Energy Guy"
Ray Darby's topic on Sustainable Energy Solutions didn't "grip" me as much as past speakers have. He had some great points, and seemed very competent, but his speech got off to a slow start. When he brought up the U.S. Energy Flow Chart for 2002, I thought he was just going to touch on it, say the major points, be done with it, and move on. But half of his speech involved a topic that we had already been made aware of during last week's speaker. Yes, roughly 2/3's of our energy is lost in either production or transportation. Yes, we're a wasteful energy society, but I was hoping more of his speech would be focused on the solutions aspect.
The second chart he posted up for us to see was a bit more interesting, and got me to wake up from my earlier state. Environmental impacts divided up into categories had my pen burning ink. Utilities, Food, and Transportation were the 3 biggest categories, accounting for, on average, 80% of our energy use. The food aspect alone had me thinking more about my recent choice to convert to veganism, as referenced in my previous post.
What I found most interesting was Mr. Darby's recounts of his home remodel back in the 80's. My dream is to one day settle down and raise a family in as much of a green house as is possible. I would ideally love to build my own home, and his ideas for window placement and energy solutions spoke levels to me. I found it funny that "Design with climate in mind!" was an advertising slogan in the 50's. What happened between then and now?
To give him credit, there was no way to know what our past speakers have touched on, so I can forgive Mr. Darby for his lengthly presentation of material already presented to us. I was hoping he would highlight more green technology for commercial and residential use, like a documentary I saw on the Science channel recently about using Aerogel as a window insulator. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that I'm such a geek as to research these sorts of topics before the speaker even comes into class!
The second chart he posted up for us to see was a bit more interesting, and got me to wake up from my earlier state. Environmental impacts divided up into categories had my pen burning ink. Utilities, Food, and Transportation were the 3 biggest categories, accounting for, on average, 80% of our energy use. The food aspect alone had me thinking more about my recent choice to convert to veganism, as referenced in my previous post.
What I found most interesting was Mr. Darby's recounts of his home remodel back in the 80's. My dream is to one day settle down and raise a family in as much of a green house as is possible. I would ideally love to build my own home, and his ideas for window placement and energy solutions spoke levels to me. I found it funny that "Design with climate in mind!" was an advertising slogan in the 50's. What happened between then and now?
To give him credit, there was no way to know what our past speakers have touched on, so I can forgive Mr. Darby for his lengthly presentation of material already presented to us. I was hoping he would highlight more green technology for commercial and residential use, like a documentary I saw on the Science channel recently about using Aerogel as a window insulator. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that I'm such a geek as to research these sorts of topics before the speaker even comes into class!
My perspective has been greatly enhanced =)
I'll open up this post by proudly exclaiming that I am converting to becoming vegan - and I have this class to thank for being one of my biggest influences. Going either vegetarian or full vegan is something I've considered for several years. The fact that I'm finally pursuing it now while being enrolled in a class on the environment would seem more than a coincidence.
I've professed myself as being a "nature geek" before on this forum, and my respect for all forms of life has always been profound. Even as a kid I didn't see much difference between an insect and a mammal ethically. I was well aware that spiders and even mosquitos have their uses, and that everything in life is interconnected. I raised praying mantises as pets all through highschool, and I don't mean just captured adults, I mean sucessfully rearing four generations of them! I grew an emotional attachment to them akin to someone who breeds dogs, although I can't remember anyone still to this day that understood my thinking. I guess I've always been unique like that.
My point for referencing my past like this comes full circle to understanding how we treat other living creatures in our society today. Factory farming, cruel confinement, "humane slaughter", I was always aware of these, but simply chose to ignore what was really going on. Most Americans don't think about how the food they're eating gets on their plate. I remember watching my first PETA undercover video when I was 22 or 23, and I've seen several more since. It's pretty bad what goes on behind the scenes, and I don't think I can ignore it anymore.
But what this class has really done for me is point out the fact that the way we live today is simply not sustainable. From the very first blog topic involving our carbon footprint I have been surprised by how inefficient our society is. And for me to say that is pretty profound. When the world you know is all bright and pretty like a new mall, you're going to assume everything's alright. I love college, it simply shatters your known world into millions of tiny realities that you otherwise may have never been able to discover on your own.
In the short couple weeks since I've begun making a conscious effort to cut animal products out of my diet I've been surprised by the backlash I've gotten from the people I know. All of the sudden I'm some "radical tree hugger". The most common question I get is "Why?", and the number of reasons is just too long to phrase into one answer. My imediate thoughts are "Well, if you took this class, did some research, and thought about it for a bit, you would change your ways, too!"
To get a general college education you need to have a certain number of math, english, and science requirements, but I don't think there's any requirement to better understand your environment. It doesn't even fall under world studies, to my knowledge. But if this very class became required, I think it would vastly help change our society's understanding of how things really work. And I think now would be a great time, too, since the economy is forcing so many older students into the system, like myself. You can listen to the media day in and day out about how bad global climate change may be, for example, but if you were actually forced to take a class about it, I gaurantee public opinion would begin to change.
I've professed myself as being a "nature geek" before on this forum, and my respect for all forms of life has always been profound. Even as a kid I didn't see much difference between an insect and a mammal ethically. I was well aware that spiders and even mosquitos have their uses, and that everything in life is interconnected. I raised praying mantises as pets all through highschool, and I don't mean just captured adults, I mean sucessfully rearing four generations of them! I grew an emotional attachment to them akin to someone who breeds dogs, although I can't remember anyone still to this day that understood my thinking. I guess I've always been unique like that.
My point for referencing my past like this comes full circle to understanding how we treat other living creatures in our society today. Factory farming, cruel confinement, "humane slaughter", I was always aware of these, but simply chose to ignore what was really going on. Most Americans don't think about how the food they're eating gets on their plate. I remember watching my first PETA undercover video when I was 22 or 23, and I've seen several more since. It's pretty bad what goes on behind the scenes, and I don't think I can ignore it anymore.
But what this class has really done for me is point out the fact that the way we live today is simply not sustainable. From the very first blog topic involving our carbon footprint I have been surprised by how inefficient our society is. And for me to say that is pretty profound. When the world you know is all bright and pretty like a new mall, you're going to assume everything's alright. I love college, it simply shatters your known world into millions of tiny realities that you otherwise may have never been able to discover on your own.
In the short couple weeks since I've begun making a conscious effort to cut animal products out of my diet I've been surprised by the backlash I've gotten from the people I know. All of the sudden I'm some "radical tree hugger". The most common question I get is "Why?", and the number of reasons is just too long to phrase into one answer. My imediate thoughts are "Well, if you took this class, did some research, and thought about it for a bit, you would change your ways, too!"
To get a general college education you need to have a certain number of math, english, and science requirements, but I don't think there's any requirement to better understand your environment. It doesn't even fall under world studies, to my knowledge. But if this very class became required, I think it would vastly help change our society's understanding of how things really work. And I think now would be a great time, too, since the economy is forcing so many older students into the system, like myself. You can listen to the media day in and day out about how bad global climate change may be, for example, but if you were actually forced to take a class about it, I gaurantee public opinion would begin to change.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Dr. Laird Thompson, not your usual "Oil guy"
This was the speaker I was dreading all semester. I was imagining a guy with some southern accent, one of those leather cords tied around a blue shirt collar, maybe even a cowboy hat. So when Dr. Thompson stepped up with his Texan accent, I feared a long lecture about what oil can do for us.
I'm glad I was wrong.
I think I was kind of bored at the beginning of the lecture, though. I know how oil was formed so to hear him describe the misconceptions of "dino oil" made me chuckle. The different formations of oil deposits, like salt domes, fault traps, and "oil bumps", was pretty interesting, too. The history of fossil fuel use and how we got to where we are today was eye-opening.
But in general, just to hear someone who's worked in the oil business talk about how to live greener lives seemed so... odd. I mean, I've heard of people hired to assess the environmental impacts of oil companies, by oil companies, but just assumed they were similar to scientists being paid by an organization to skew their experiments to report what their employers wanted to hear in the first place. To hear Dr. Thompson exclaim that this last administration was the worst possible in regards to energy production was encouraging. It's lectures like this that make me wish my conservative housemates were in this class, just to open their eyes to the world.
I can't say there were any points I disagreed with, or at least nothing I wrote down or remembered. Maybe we should have a conservative, pro-oil speaker come to class one of these days, just for the ability to criticize their thinking =)
I'm glad I was wrong.
I think I was kind of bored at the beginning of the lecture, though. I know how oil was formed so to hear him describe the misconceptions of "dino oil" made me chuckle. The different formations of oil deposits, like salt domes, fault traps, and "oil bumps", was pretty interesting, too. The history of fossil fuel use and how we got to where we are today was eye-opening.
But in general, just to hear someone who's worked in the oil business talk about how to live greener lives seemed so... odd. I mean, I've heard of people hired to assess the environmental impacts of oil companies, by oil companies, but just assumed they were similar to scientists being paid by an organization to skew their experiments to report what their employers wanted to hear in the first place. To hear Dr. Thompson exclaim that this last administration was the worst possible in regards to energy production was encouraging. It's lectures like this that make me wish my conservative housemates were in this class, just to open their eyes to the world.
I can't say there were any points I disagreed with, or at least nothing I wrote down or remembered. Maybe we should have a conservative, pro-oil speaker come to class one of these days, just for the ability to criticize their thinking =)
Joe Medeiros, the sequel!
250,000 people added to this planet every day...
116 square miles of rainforest destroyed every day...
15 million tons of carbon added to the atmosphere every day...
And perhaps the worst statistic of all, 50-100 species, gone, forever, every day...
Joe Medeiros may as well have been using a loud speaker, because those words shattered my ear drums. It's figures like this that makes the idea of sustainable living on this planet material for a sci-fi flick. I mean, seriously, we're going to reach the tipping point in our lifetime if nothing is done, and then what are we going to do?
If your house was in the middle of burning down, would you go back in and install a smoke detector?
I must be a bleeding heart liberal environmentalist, because everything that Joe said spoke to me. It bugs me about our world standing, having such a small percentage of the world's population and still using a good chunk of its resources. I've never left the continent, so I haven't seen how people live overseas, but I doubt other countries are blind to these statistics. I know if I were in their position, I would be fighting for change. I wonder if, or when, the next World War happens, if it will be over resources?
Actually, with the way we are heading, the next World War will probably be just that, the World warring against us. Like any other species which maximizes its carrying capacity, we will be no different.
116 square miles of rainforest destroyed every day...
15 million tons of carbon added to the atmosphere every day...
And perhaps the worst statistic of all, 50-100 species, gone, forever, every day...
Joe Medeiros may as well have been using a loud speaker, because those words shattered my ear drums. It's figures like this that makes the idea of sustainable living on this planet material for a sci-fi flick. I mean, seriously, we're going to reach the tipping point in our lifetime if nothing is done, and then what are we going to do?
If your house was in the middle of burning down, would you go back in and install a smoke detector?
I must be a bleeding heart liberal environmentalist, because everything that Joe said spoke to me. It bugs me about our world standing, having such a small percentage of the world's population and still using a good chunk of its resources. I've never left the continent, so I haven't seen how people live overseas, but I doubt other countries are blind to these statistics. I know if I were in their position, I would be fighting for change. I wonder if, or when, the next World War happens, if it will be over resources?
Actually, with the way we are heading, the next World War will probably be just that, the World warring against us. Like any other species which maximizes its carrying capacity, we will be no different.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Jane Haproff, why the YouTube lecture?
Before I begin this post I'll acknowledge that I am probably unfairly jaded towards Jane simply based off her topic: RELIGION and the environment. I personally am fairly anti-religious, and believe the world would be better off without religion of any kind. That being said, and since I recognized this early into her lecture, I tried to still remain objective throughout her speech.
I still think the lecture itself was probably the least informative or mind-opening of the semester, though.
The first question I have is this: WHY exactly did she feel the need to show us TWO videos off YouTube on the biblical version of genesis? Although most people probably haven't read the section itself, I feel the five minutes of lecture on the 7 days probably were suffice to describe the event, a visual aid was not needed. And why not show any videos of the other religious ideals of creation? I didn't see anything about pagan goddesses giving birth to the world, or Egyptians and their beliefs of creation by Ra, the sun god. I could only view her lecture as skewed towards some variant of Christian faith, as most religious topics today seem to be, and it didn't help my opinion of the topic.
On day 3 God created "seed-bearing plants"? Please. Flowering, seed-bearing and fruit-bearing plants didn't appear in the fossil record until 100 million years ago. Ferns, conifers, and many different varieties of extinct flora thrived long before these divine creations appeared.
I was the one that spoke out against her in class on her definition of "Karma". She was totally wrong, and I felt it necessary to correct her lest she misinform the 150 or however many students in this class that were watching her. To clarify again, her ideas of Eastern Karma were actually western ideas, ones that only appeared within the last century. In the Easter view, you do good in this life to improve your stature in the next life. In the Western view, you do good to be repayed in good in this life only. Your place in the cycle of reincarnation is non-existant, since more people in western cultures believe more in the Christian ideals of Heaven and an afterlife.
She also couldn't answer my question about Islamic Terrorism being an oxymoron. All in all, this was the first class I left in an almost upset mood. The very topic, "Religion and the Environment", wasn't really covered. It would have been better called "Religious views on creation". I think next time actually having a discussion on methods and plans by different religious organizations to help or hinder the environment might make a better lecture. Recently the pope declared pollution a sin, but I never heard her mention that once, or anything about the effectiveness of his declaration, seeing as not many Catholic organizations have changed their environmental policies since.
I don't know, I'm probably being too hard on her, but I was nowhere near as entertained, enlightened, or excited over her lecture as I have been with speakers past. Any other thoughts?
I still think the lecture itself was probably the least informative or mind-opening of the semester, though.
The first question I have is this: WHY exactly did she feel the need to show us TWO videos off YouTube on the biblical version of genesis? Although most people probably haven't read the section itself, I feel the five minutes of lecture on the 7 days probably were suffice to describe the event, a visual aid was not needed. And why not show any videos of the other religious ideals of creation? I didn't see anything about pagan goddesses giving birth to the world, or Egyptians and their beliefs of creation by Ra, the sun god. I could only view her lecture as skewed towards some variant of Christian faith, as most religious topics today seem to be, and it didn't help my opinion of the topic.
On day 3 God created "seed-bearing plants"? Please. Flowering, seed-bearing and fruit-bearing plants didn't appear in the fossil record until 100 million years ago. Ferns, conifers, and many different varieties of extinct flora thrived long before these divine creations appeared.
I was the one that spoke out against her in class on her definition of "Karma". She was totally wrong, and I felt it necessary to correct her lest she misinform the 150 or however many students in this class that were watching her. To clarify again, her ideas of Eastern Karma were actually western ideas, ones that only appeared within the last century. In the Easter view, you do good in this life to improve your stature in the next life. In the Western view, you do good to be repayed in good in this life only. Your place in the cycle of reincarnation is non-existant, since more people in western cultures believe more in the Christian ideals of Heaven and an afterlife.
She also couldn't answer my question about Islamic Terrorism being an oxymoron. All in all, this was the first class I left in an almost upset mood. The very topic, "Religion and the Environment", wasn't really covered. It would have been better called "Religious views on creation". I think next time actually having a discussion on methods and plans by different religious organizations to help or hinder the environment might make a better lecture. Recently the pope declared pollution a sin, but I never heard her mention that once, or anything about the effectiveness of his declaration, seeing as not many Catholic organizations have changed their environmental policies since.
I don't know, I'm probably being too hard on her, but I was nowhere near as entertained, enlightened, or excited over her lecture as I have been with speakers past. Any other thoughts?
Frank DeCourten, an earth-warming lecture
"The history of science is littered with the carcases of dead ideas."
I LOVED this quote, although I didn't write down whom he quoted it from. I agree with Mr. DeCourten's idea that science is an evergrowing, everchanging field, and that it needs to be just like that to function properly. Today we know the world to be spherical, hundreds of years ago we thought it flat. Tomorrow we could discover something totally different, beyond our wildest imaginations, but until we do we'll continue with what we know best. I often get in arguments with people that exclaim science to be nothing more than "theories", but this class has helped me a great deal to show that that's actually a good thing.
The five main points that Frank highlighted for us are scary to consider, especially the part about global warming getting worse. I was skeptical to a degree about all the doomsaying drafted up by climate scientists lately and overemphasized by the media, imagining maybe it was all just worst case scenario studies, but Frank's lecture helped me understand we ARE living in a worst case scenario right now. I tried to take the most detailed notes of his charts and diagrams to show my roomates at home whom are often completely uninterested in scientific studies. It made one of them step back and go "wow".
Even when he broke down climate change in the future decades and its impact on California my jaw continued to drop. A 7.5 degree increase worldwide by the end of the century is pretty much doomsaying, but we need to prepare for it. I think the time for disbelieving the world is in trouble is over, and we'd either better make plans for living on the moon and mars or fix what we have now quick.
I suppose the last few days I've become the doomsayer myself. I've brought up conversations about this lecture and global warming to my roomates, relatives, friends and coworkers. Most people immediately got into defense mode and shrugged off what I had to say as nothing more than any other media source. I think disinterest through overexposure might be the hardest obstacle to overcome when it comes to convincing people we have a problem. On the other hand, when wine graps start dying off before they can be made into wine, people might notice THAT.
I LOVED this quote, although I didn't write down whom he quoted it from. I agree with Mr. DeCourten's idea that science is an evergrowing, everchanging field, and that it needs to be just like that to function properly. Today we know the world to be spherical, hundreds of years ago we thought it flat. Tomorrow we could discover something totally different, beyond our wildest imaginations, but until we do we'll continue with what we know best. I often get in arguments with people that exclaim science to be nothing more than "theories", but this class has helped me a great deal to show that that's actually a good thing.
The five main points that Frank highlighted for us are scary to consider, especially the part about global warming getting worse. I was skeptical to a degree about all the doomsaying drafted up by climate scientists lately and overemphasized by the media, imagining maybe it was all just worst case scenario studies, but Frank's lecture helped me understand we ARE living in a worst case scenario right now. I tried to take the most detailed notes of his charts and diagrams to show my roomates at home whom are often completely uninterested in scientific studies. It made one of them step back and go "wow".
Even when he broke down climate change in the future decades and its impact on California my jaw continued to drop. A 7.5 degree increase worldwide by the end of the century is pretty much doomsaying, but we need to prepare for it. I think the time for disbelieving the world is in trouble is over, and we'd either better make plans for living on the moon and mars or fix what we have now quick.
I suppose the last few days I've become the doomsayer myself. I've brought up conversations about this lecture and global warming to my roomates, relatives, friends and coworkers. Most people immediately got into defense mode and shrugged off what I had to say as nothing more than any other media source. I think disinterest through overexposure might be the hardest obstacle to overcome when it comes to convincing people we have a problem. On the other hand, when wine graps start dying off before they can be made into wine, people might notice THAT.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lynn Medeiros, radical feminist
Of course I mean that in the best possible way! I loved Lynn's speech, and although history itself isn't a main interest of mine, I think I'll try to take at least one class from her. The highlight of her lecture was something she said at the end, asking the class: "Do you believe in equality for everyone?" and upon noticing some hands weren't raised "So tell me, why do YOU want to be treated differently?" I've used that line twice now over the weekend in political blogs concerning Prop 8, and no one yet has answered me =)
In fact I think the introduction of Proposition 8 during her lecture distracted me from the other subjects she talked about. Of course the one day I leave my notebook at home and I can't take effective notes to recall on. She was definitely engaging. Keeley is active and mobile and vocal, but Lynn trumped her that day. It was exciting.
In fact I think the introduction of Proposition 8 during her lecture distracted me from the other subjects she talked about. Of course the one day I leave my notebook at home and I can't take effective notes to recall on. She was definitely engaging. Keeley is active and mobile and vocal, but Lynn trumped her that day. It was exciting.
Why does anyone believe what they believe?
I've always considered myself a "nature geek". Growing up, my father was very restrictive in what tv I was allowed to watch, and having only 6 or so channels, my preference became the old school nature documentaries on PBS. Wild America, Nature, or any kid-version thereof. I new the lifecycle and habits of the pacific octopus by fourth grade, and got to debate with a teacher when they read a story in class! Still to this day I find myself preferring channels like Discovery, Animal Planet, and Science over mainstream television. And since it seems more and more people have begun watching the same lately, I can say I was a nature geek before it was cool.
I was also forced to play outside a lot. Well, not forced, but had my parents not been attentive in making sure I spent more time outside than in, I probably would have grown up differently. I also lived in the boonies of Auburn, so there wasn't much interaction I might have had in a city environment. I was the last stop on the bus route and still had to walk a good distance home. Even in highschool, since we claimed to live in one school district but really didn't, I had to trek home quite a bit on foot. It gave me more of an appreciation for nature than taking 30 min to drive through it.
I've also been to 48 of the 50 states. My parents were leather crafters up until i was 11, and I've been to nearly every state fair. I guess getting out of your home state can give you an appreciation for how big the world is. In high school I went to Costa Rica for 9 days, most of which were spent in the cloud forests. Amazing country, and it gave me a chance to feel and experience what I had watched on tv for so many years. My mom even sold her car so I could go, which made it all the more important to me.
And since we weren't much of a pet family, I had to make do with what I could find or catch. I spent all four years of high school raising generations of praying mantises as pets, from tiny larva to full adult. I grew a venus flytraps, and would cross polinate their three-foot tall flowers with a paintbrush. I've had pet garter snakes, turtles, jumping spiders, all the weird and creepy. I think I can understand better than most that life does come in all forms, and I get just as emotionally attached to seeing a mother spider and her nest of eggs hanging in the corner of my garage as someone does walking by the pet store and seeing all the puppies. Except that I'll go out of my way to catch some sort of insect to feed her, whereas pet store goers aren't usually allowed to feed the animals.
After I turned 11 my mom went back to being a veterinarian, further emphasis being put into my head that life with animals was so important. I heard all sorts of stories at the dinner table about people either being cruel or kind to their pets.
All this past gives me my great appreciation for life and the environment today. I Tivo nature programs and science channel documentaries when most others are watching American Idol. I want to visit the forests and savannah of Africa, the unexplored depths of New Zealand, and the Barrier Reefs of Australia. Human history interests me little compared to the millions of years of natural history this planet has to offer, and that keeps me in the belief that protecting the future of that history is vastly more important than we'll ever understand as a species.
I was also forced to play outside a lot. Well, not forced, but had my parents not been attentive in making sure I spent more time outside than in, I probably would have grown up differently. I also lived in the boonies of Auburn, so there wasn't much interaction I might have had in a city environment. I was the last stop on the bus route and still had to walk a good distance home. Even in highschool, since we claimed to live in one school district but really didn't, I had to trek home quite a bit on foot. It gave me more of an appreciation for nature than taking 30 min to drive through it.
I've also been to 48 of the 50 states. My parents were leather crafters up until i was 11, and I've been to nearly every state fair. I guess getting out of your home state can give you an appreciation for how big the world is. In high school I went to Costa Rica for 9 days, most of which were spent in the cloud forests. Amazing country, and it gave me a chance to feel and experience what I had watched on tv for so many years. My mom even sold her car so I could go, which made it all the more important to me.
And since we weren't much of a pet family, I had to make do with what I could find or catch. I spent all four years of high school raising generations of praying mantises as pets, from tiny larva to full adult. I grew a venus flytraps, and would cross polinate their three-foot tall flowers with a paintbrush. I've had pet garter snakes, turtles, jumping spiders, all the weird and creepy. I think I can understand better than most that life does come in all forms, and I get just as emotionally attached to seeing a mother spider and her nest of eggs hanging in the corner of my garage as someone does walking by the pet store and seeing all the puppies. Except that I'll go out of my way to catch some sort of insect to feed her, whereas pet store goers aren't usually allowed to feed the animals.
After I turned 11 my mom went back to being a veterinarian, further emphasis being put into my head that life with animals was so important. I heard all sorts of stories at the dinner table about people either being cruel or kind to their pets.
All this past gives me my great appreciation for life and the environment today. I Tivo nature programs and science channel documentaries when most others are watching American Idol. I want to visit the forests and savannah of Africa, the unexplored depths of New Zealand, and the Barrier Reefs of Australia. Human history interests me little compared to the millions of years of natural history this planet has to offer, and that keeps me in the belief that protecting the future of that history is vastly more important than we'll ever understand as a species.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Vernon Martin, an eye-opening lecture
Environmental Ethics is a class I'm considering taking in either the Summer or Fall of this year. The topic seemed interesting when I was going over the course catalogue, and after Prof. Martin's lecture I am now thoroughly intrigued. His introduction with the dollar bill as nothing more than a representation of money helped explain where he was going with his topic.
The part of his lesson concerning the evolution of advertising was interesting, too. I always try to analyze what I see on television, especially the things that DON'T appeal to me, to see where the producers are coming from and what target audience they are trying to reach. I guess psychology is just as fascinating as environmental studies for me.
There wasn't anything I didn't agree with or didn't understand from the lecture. He was a good speaker and put together his presentation well. About the only negative connotation I could assign him was his final drawing where he told us all to list words in a circle around the word "Nature" representing what it means to us personally. The discrepency I had was I put the word "complex" down on my list, and when he flashed his list up on the screen he had put "simple". I suppose a philosohy professor might not be as well-versed on the complexities of the natural world as an environmental studies major =)
He was also pretty hot, too...
The part of his lesson concerning the evolution of advertising was interesting, too. I always try to analyze what I see on television, especially the things that DON'T appeal to me, to see where the producers are coming from and what target audience they are trying to reach. I guess psychology is just as fascinating as environmental studies for me.
There wasn't anything I didn't agree with or didn't understand from the lecture. He was a good speaker and put together his presentation well. About the only negative connotation I could assign him was his final drawing where he told us all to list words in a circle around the word "Nature" representing what it means to us personally. The discrepency I had was I put the word "complex" down on my list, and when he flashed his list up on the screen he had put "simple". I suppose a philosohy professor might not be as well-versed on the complexities of the natural world as an environmental studies major =)
He was also pretty hot, too...
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Joe Medeiros, an awesome speaker
I think it was during Mr. Medeiros' first few sentences that I realized I was really going to enjoy his lecture. I've been fascinated with the biodiversity of this planet for years, indeed most of my life, and few people I come across are as passionate about it as I am.
The lecture started off with a brief on taxonomy, again something I take great interest in. I practice taxonomy every day in organizing my computer files, class notes, closet space, you name it. Yes, I'm a geek. It fascinates me every time some well-known species is further divided into new sub-species, or broken apart in different ways. Recently learning that skunks aren't as closely related to weasels as previously thought actually excited me, but I haven't found anyone else that shared those feelings. The species that make our planet home will likely never be completely classified.
When La Selva research station was mentioned during the short film I practically drooled. I went to Costa Rica when I was a teenager, and spent a little over a week traveling the rainforests and cloudforests there. It would be a dream of mine to work for the OTS, and I wouldn't mind living in Costa Rica, either. Gorgeous country. I grew up as a kid raising jumping spiders and praying mantises as pets, and am still mindful of them today. Being an entomologist held some appeal as a kid, but I think evolutionary biology would be a little more expansive.
This lecture was an eye-opener, too. I know the natural world is going to hell in a handbasket so to speak, but he laid out the details well. "Today we are looking at the collapse of entire ecosystems whereas before we were just witnessing the collapse of species." It all goes back to the idea of ecosystem conservation. No one species is the end-all, but the disappearance of several species will ultimately make the entire pyramid come down.
He did such a wonderful job highlighting the importance of biodiversity from several angles, I hope he got through to some of the less caring individuals I've run across in class. Conservation is SO important in today's world, but some people still propose we just "save the species that we eat."
Thank you, Mr. Medeiros.
The lecture started off with a brief on taxonomy, again something I take great interest in. I practice taxonomy every day in organizing my computer files, class notes, closet space, you name it. Yes, I'm a geek. It fascinates me every time some well-known species is further divided into new sub-species, or broken apart in different ways. Recently learning that skunks aren't as closely related to weasels as previously thought actually excited me, but I haven't found anyone else that shared those feelings. The species that make our planet home will likely never be completely classified.
When La Selva research station was mentioned during the short film I practically drooled. I went to Costa Rica when I was a teenager, and spent a little over a week traveling the rainforests and cloudforests there. It would be a dream of mine to work for the OTS, and I wouldn't mind living in Costa Rica, either. Gorgeous country. I grew up as a kid raising jumping spiders and praying mantises as pets, and am still mindful of them today. Being an entomologist held some appeal as a kid, but I think evolutionary biology would be a little more expansive.
This lecture was an eye-opener, too. I know the natural world is going to hell in a handbasket so to speak, but he laid out the details well. "Today we are looking at the collapse of entire ecosystems whereas before we were just witnessing the collapse of species." It all goes back to the idea of ecosystem conservation. No one species is the end-all, but the disappearance of several species will ultimately make the entire pyramid come down.
He did such a wonderful job highlighting the importance of biodiversity from several angles, I hope he got through to some of the less caring individuals I've run across in class. Conservation is SO important in today's world, but some people still propose we just "save the species that we eat."
Thank you, Mr. Medeiros.
Toxic dilemma
I don't think there's a person born in this country that hasn't been exposed to some amount of toxic material. We all live with toxins every day, and have for our entire lives, the only question is how aware have you been of them? Our air is polluted, our water is contaminated, and our food is chocked full of hormones, antibiotics, additives, you name it. There's no questioning that we would live in a cleaner environment if we could, but since that's not an option for most of us, we'll have to deal with what we have.
Similar to the conservation of species and habitats, we should focus on the larger issues first, since they hold the greatest threats to our health and very lives. Focusing on bigger problems can be more easily done by funding and projects than can smaller issues, since larger populations can more likely donate greater amounts of money or time to the cause. If some black cloud descended over a major city, you can bet a large portion of those citizens would take efforts to spare the air, whereas one smoke-spewing industrial plant probably won't generate the same attention. Since I'm not an environmental scientist yet, I don't know what health issues in this state are truly of greater importance, but after the last couple weeks I could probably suggest our state waterways. If more people were made aware of this dilemma, and federal or state funding could be made available for it, I'm sure we could make a massive movement towards a cleaner state. Future companies in turn would also likely make adjustments to not pollute the water further lest they invoke negative publicity.
Of course I care about the pollution of my planet. I'm a believer that starting today no more businesses need to be created that pollute as bad as their predecessors . We have the means to start building a cleaner society, we should do it, and start cleaning up while we're at it. As far as cleaning up mining waste goes, I think there should be a compromise between private land owners and the government. When someone purchases property, whether it be a car, a house, or a patch of land, they take responsibility for it. The same goes for when you discover hazardous material in your backyard, but since I sympathize that this mess was not likely the fault of the new landowner, why not provide some sort of government grant to cover half the cost of cleaning the waste up? It's still the landowners responsibility to have it done, but now the entire effort doesn't fall solely on their shoulders. I think this would help out everyone in the long run, most of all those living near the site!
Of course cleaning up is all well and good, but what are you going to do with the mess? This is where I'm left torn. I hate the idea of burying a problem, but some toxins just can't be cleaned up with our current knowledge or technology. I suppose you could just dig a REALLY deep hole, like in Yucca Mountain, and drop it off there, but the thought makes me cringe, and eventually you run out of space. Other countries have devised different methods of garbage disposal, like Singapore's practice of building off-shore cement island land-fills that serve as building platforms for future cities. Perhaps, since I'm short on answers for this country, we could look overseas to see how others handle the issue?
And when it comes to the question, "How toxic is toxic?", I suppose we can only gauge what science tells us. Laboratory studies or case studies of polluted environments compared to clean environments are probably the best bet for determining levels of toxicity. If higher ppm of "substance A" are found in "lake B" compared to "lake C", and the citizens of the polluted area contract "mutant power X", I would imagine it a safe bet something needs to be done. Again, I'm not a scientist, yet, but I am an optimist, and I can hope to see something done in my lifetime to ensure my descendents will live in a cleaner world than I do.
Similar to the conservation of species and habitats, we should focus on the larger issues first, since they hold the greatest threats to our health and very lives. Focusing on bigger problems can be more easily done by funding and projects than can smaller issues, since larger populations can more likely donate greater amounts of money or time to the cause. If some black cloud descended over a major city, you can bet a large portion of those citizens would take efforts to spare the air, whereas one smoke-spewing industrial plant probably won't generate the same attention. Since I'm not an environmental scientist yet, I don't know what health issues in this state are truly of greater importance, but after the last couple weeks I could probably suggest our state waterways. If more people were made aware of this dilemma, and federal or state funding could be made available for it, I'm sure we could make a massive movement towards a cleaner state. Future companies in turn would also likely make adjustments to not pollute the water further lest they invoke negative publicity.
Of course I care about the pollution of my planet. I'm a believer that starting today no more businesses need to be created that pollute as bad as their predecessors . We have the means to start building a cleaner society, we should do it, and start cleaning up while we're at it. As far as cleaning up mining waste goes, I think there should be a compromise between private land owners and the government. When someone purchases property, whether it be a car, a house, or a patch of land, they take responsibility for it. The same goes for when you discover hazardous material in your backyard, but since I sympathize that this mess was not likely the fault of the new landowner, why not provide some sort of government grant to cover half the cost of cleaning the waste up? It's still the landowners responsibility to have it done, but now the entire effort doesn't fall solely on their shoulders. I think this would help out everyone in the long run, most of all those living near the site!
Of course cleaning up is all well and good, but what are you going to do with the mess? This is where I'm left torn. I hate the idea of burying a problem, but some toxins just can't be cleaned up with our current knowledge or technology. I suppose you could just dig a REALLY deep hole, like in Yucca Mountain, and drop it off there, but the thought makes me cringe, and eventually you run out of space. Other countries have devised different methods of garbage disposal, like Singapore's practice of building off-shore cement island land-fills that serve as building platforms for future cities. Perhaps, since I'm short on answers for this country, we could look overseas to see how others handle the issue?
And when it comes to the question, "How toxic is toxic?", I suppose we can only gauge what science tells us. Laboratory studies or case studies of polluted environments compared to clean environments are probably the best bet for determining levels of toxicity. If higher ppm of "substance A" are found in "lake B" compared to "lake C", and the citizens of the polluted area contract "mutant power X", I would imagine it a safe bet something needs to be done. Again, I'm not a scientist, yet, but I am an optimist, and I can hope to see something done in my lifetime to ensure my descendents will live in a cleaner world than I do.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Mike Thornton, an okay speaker
Mike Thornton followed a tough act speaking after Gary Noy. I was charged up for another exciting lecture, and wasn't as impressed when it was all said and done. The speech itself was educational, I still took several pages of notes, but I think his charisma score was a few points lower than Mr. Noy's. Being a doctor and not a scientist, as he readily confessed several times, also detracted from his ability to answer questions at the end. Still a great speaker, though.
For years I haven't touched tap water save for use in cooking. I won't drink it straight out of the faucet; I prefer purified or bottled water. That was in part from living in Nevada for four years, which has some of the poorest quality drinking water in the nation, mostly due to all the mining that occurred over the years. Listening to Dr. Thornton lecture on how bad our water is only added to my stigma of drinking public water. I love eating fish, though, and each summer I eat a good amount of trout, so I'm kind of torn as to if I'm going to continue again this year.
The depth of his coverage on mining techniques and the legacy of mining today was very detailed, and quite scary as I scan over my notes now. Of the 26 million pounds of Mercury used for gold mining, only roughly half was recovered. That is a LOT of contamination, let alone the amounts of asbestos, arsenic, and cyanide in addition to that. I don't have the money or time to dedicate currently in helping take care of the problem, but like he said in class outreach and education are going to be the strongest tools, and I can certainly pass on the lessons I learned on Thursday.
For years I haven't touched tap water save for use in cooking. I won't drink it straight out of the faucet; I prefer purified or bottled water. That was in part from living in Nevada for four years, which has some of the poorest quality drinking water in the nation, mostly due to all the mining that occurred over the years. Listening to Dr. Thornton lecture on how bad our water is only added to my stigma of drinking public water. I love eating fish, though, and each summer I eat a good amount of trout, so I'm kind of torn as to if I'm going to continue again this year.
The depth of his coverage on mining techniques and the legacy of mining today was very detailed, and quite scary as I scan over my notes now. Of the 26 million pounds of Mercury used for gold mining, only roughly half was recovered. That is a LOT of contamination, let alone the amounts of asbestos, arsenic, and cyanide in addition to that. I don't have the money or time to dedicate currently in helping take care of the problem, but like he said in class outreach and education are going to be the strongest tools, and I can certainly pass on the lessons I learned on Thursday.
Gary Noy, a fantastic speaker
As a fifth-generation Californian I am always interested in learning the history of the Golden State. I know the last couple centuries have been a sad note in California's ecological timeline, but I suppose visual aids can always enhance one's education. Specifically seeing the picture of the Lake Tahoe area devoid of trees was an eye-opener. I haven't been able to stop talking about it outside of class, and any family members I've come across in the meantime have heard about it too. My grandmother was born in Truckee, so I suppose the trees she knew grewing up were probably the very ones planted by the people of the area.
I found the majority of Gary Noy's speech entertaining and educational. He presented it well and knew his material and how to display it. His selection of language and injection of emotion at times helped keep peoples' attention (the part where he emphasized "they MURDERED that tree, just to show they COULD!" comes to mind). I'm looking forward to future speeches. Too bad he's retired, I think I would take a class from him if I could.
It was also cool to learn the details about the Sierra Nevada that I wasn't aware of before. I didn't know calling them the "Sierras" was a misnomer, and I didn't know it was all just one slab of granite. I visited the capital this week and even pointed out to a friend that the buildings were made from Rocklin granite, since we live in Rocklin. He was unimpressed, LOL.
I found the majority of Gary Noy's speech entertaining and educational. He presented it well and knew his material and how to display it. His selection of language and injection of emotion at times helped keep peoples' attention (the part where he emphasized "they MURDERED that tree, just to show they COULD!" comes to mind). I'm looking forward to future speeches. Too bad he's retired, I think I would take a class from him if I could.
It was also cool to learn the details about the Sierra Nevada that I wasn't aware of before. I didn't know calling them the "Sierras" was a misnomer, and I didn't know it was all just one slab of granite. I visited the capital this week and even pointed out to a friend that the buildings were made from Rocklin granite, since we live in Rocklin. He was unimpressed, LOL.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Concerning the conservation of species...
Conserving endangered species and preventing the loss of wild habitat has been something I've been interested in since I was in middle school. I remember raising over a hundred dollars as a kid to conserve rainforest for a school fundraising project, and when I was in my early twenties I donated several hundred more to conservation funds. In retrospect, I'm not sure how useful that money was, if at all, although I do have a better idea today on how we can globally focus our efforts.
To start with, the idea that one species is more important than another is generally not true. An ecosystem thrives when all levels are protected. It's for that main reason why I'm usually in favor of spot conservation: conserving an area of land, such as rainforest, steppe, grassland and such. Setting up preserves like this protects several species at once, and as in the case for many African wildlife preserves, can generate income from safari-goers and tourists. Generating cash is one of two main ways I think we can protect wildlife in the long-term.
I think we have to become aware that as we populate this planet more and more there are going to be species that will go extinct. It's just not a realistic view to imagine saving everything. We as humans have grown to see dollar signs in everything we do, and companies and corporations won't do anything unless it benefits them in some way financially (even those that CLAIM they are only doing it to be green are still benefitting through public relations). It's for that reason in class when Keeley pointed out that most of the ambassador species tend to be cute, furry mammals. When was the last time you saw a shark, a snake, or a spider as a mascot to raise conservation funds? The World Wildlife Fund is still a business, and to continue successfully they are going to do what's in their best interests. At least the money they get from having a polar bear as a mascot will also go to help conserve the Greenland shark.
Cash isn't the only method for conserving species; education can be just as useful. Consider China: besides having to feeds billions of people, China's culture relies heavily on the consumption of exotic animals as a status symbol. Consuming shark fin soup is reserved for the wealthy, while ground tiger balm is common for oriental medicine. If we could educate Chinese that the psuedoscience of consuming animals to gain metaphysical benefits is a detriment to their environment, less endangered animals would go extinct.
Education could be applied pretty much anywhere human and animal interractions go badly. In Africa and India elephants raid crops. Farmers put these crops out in the open with tiny fences around them. If farmers could be taught to dig deep trenches instead, ones that elephants would be hesitant to try and cross, less crops could be raided.
Concerning the question of erradicating introduced species, I'm all in favor of removing harmful foreign inhabitants from an ecosystem, but sometimes it's too late. This country is probably beyond helping, since feral cats, dogs, horses, pigs, rats, and truly countless other creatures have now expanded to pretty much every one of the continental United States. Australia's feral count includes the the same list of animals and toads, goats, foxes and rabbits. These animals are just too hard to get rid of, and have been living there for a good couple hundred years now. We should use these examples as a learning exercise and go forward with the intent of keeping ecosystems pure and stopping foreign invaders as soon as they are detected.
In the end I think we can live side by side with nature, although it will require a lot more effort on our part. Setting aside wildlife preserves, educating the general public on how to live alongside such creatures, and learning how not to deplete wild sources of game will be the most successful efforts, in my opinion. Anyone else know of any good ones?
To start with, the idea that one species is more important than another is generally not true. An ecosystem thrives when all levels are protected. It's for that main reason why I'm usually in favor of spot conservation: conserving an area of land, such as rainforest, steppe, grassland and such. Setting up preserves like this protects several species at once, and as in the case for many African wildlife preserves, can generate income from safari-goers and tourists. Generating cash is one of two main ways I think we can protect wildlife in the long-term.
I think we have to become aware that as we populate this planet more and more there are going to be species that will go extinct. It's just not a realistic view to imagine saving everything. We as humans have grown to see dollar signs in everything we do, and companies and corporations won't do anything unless it benefits them in some way financially (even those that CLAIM they are only doing it to be green are still benefitting through public relations). It's for that reason in class when Keeley pointed out that most of the ambassador species tend to be cute, furry mammals. When was the last time you saw a shark, a snake, or a spider as a mascot to raise conservation funds? The World Wildlife Fund is still a business, and to continue successfully they are going to do what's in their best interests. At least the money they get from having a polar bear as a mascot will also go to help conserve the Greenland shark.
Cash isn't the only method for conserving species; education can be just as useful. Consider China: besides having to feeds billions of people, China's culture relies heavily on the consumption of exotic animals as a status symbol. Consuming shark fin soup is reserved for the wealthy, while ground tiger balm is common for oriental medicine. If we could educate Chinese that the psuedoscience of consuming animals to gain metaphysical benefits is a detriment to their environment, less endangered animals would go extinct.
Education could be applied pretty much anywhere human and animal interractions go badly. In Africa and India elephants raid crops. Farmers put these crops out in the open with tiny fences around them. If farmers could be taught to dig deep trenches instead, ones that elephants would be hesitant to try and cross, less crops could be raided.
Concerning the question of erradicating introduced species, I'm all in favor of removing harmful foreign inhabitants from an ecosystem, but sometimes it's too late. This country is probably beyond helping, since feral cats, dogs, horses, pigs, rats, and truly countless other creatures have now expanded to pretty much every one of the continental United States. Australia's feral count includes the the same list of animals and toads, goats, foxes and rabbits. These animals are just too hard to get rid of, and have been living there for a good couple hundred years now. We should use these examples as a learning exercise and go forward with the intent of keeping ecosystems pure and stopping foreign invaders as soon as they are detected.
In the end I think we can live side by side with nature, although it will require a lot more effort on our part. Setting aside wildlife preserves, educating the general public on how to live alongside such creatures, and learning how not to deplete wild sources of game will be the most successful efforts, in my opinion. Anyone else know of any good ones?
Sunday, January 25, 2009
4.86 Earths
If everyone on the planet lived my lifestyle, we would need 4.86 Earths to sustain us
. Needless to say, I thought I was better than that. Not necessarily because I go out of my way to save the planet, but I'm a poor college student like the rest of you, and I try to live frugally. I own an '86 toyota corolla and drive maybe 50 miles a week, so gas consumption isn't a major concern of mine. I buy groceries and cook my own food rather than going out all the time. I don't eat much meat, but generally something every day. I live with four other people who pretty much never touch the thermostat, and in the summer we maybe water the lawn twice a week. The city of Rocklin recycles all our garbage for us, but I try to reuse water bottles and tupperware instead of plastic bags. I'm not quite sure how much more, at this time in my life, I will be able to reduce my carbon footprint further. And it's not that I don't care, but I can only live within my means at the moment. Back when I had money a lifetime ago I bought organic foods, paid for the extra energy saving bulbs and household devices, and even donated money to save rainforest land. I suppose when you don't have to worry about saving every dime you make you can afford to help out others. At least I can say that every animal I've ever owned was either a rescue or adoption, but then again you have to FEED dogs and cats meat, so I suppose that doesn't help in any way, shape or form. To answer the question of whether or not it is fair for people in the United States to have such a large ecological footprint, I would have to say that there are people in our society that donate time and money to lower our footprint as a nation, while I know some countries do little or nothing to slow the process. Poor communities and countries will have to rely on the work of richer ones to balance everything out, and despite our current economic condition, I think the U.S. is capable of doing just that over time. It will have to be.
~Nefreet
. Needless to say, I thought I was better than that. Not necessarily because I go out of my way to save the planet, but I'm a poor college student like the rest of you, and I try to live frugally. I own an '86 toyota corolla and drive maybe 50 miles a week, so gas consumption isn't a major concern of mine. I buy groceries and cook my own food rather than going out all the time. I don't eat much meat, but generally something every day. I live with four other people who pretty much never touch the thermostat, and in the summer we maybe water the lawn twice a week. The city of Rocklin recycles all our garbage for us, but I try to reuse water bottles and tupperware instead of plastic bags. I'm not quite sure how much more, at this time in my life, I will be able to reduce my carbon footprint further. And it's not that I don't care, but I can only live within my means at the moment. Back when I had money a lifetime ago I bought organic foods, paid for the extra energy saving bulbs and household devices, and even donated money to save rainforest land. I suppose when you don't have to worry about saving every dime you make you can afford to help out others. At least I can say that every animal I've ever owned was either a rescue or adoption, but then again you have to FEED dogs and cats meat, so I suppose that doesn't help in any way, shape or form. To answer the question of whether or not it is fair for people in the United States to have such a large ecological footprint, I would have to say that there are people in our society that donate time and money to lower our footprint as a nation, while I know some countries do little or nothing to slow the process. Poor communities and countries will have to rely on the work of richer ones to balance everything out, and despite our current economic condition, I think the U.S. is capable of doing just that over time. It will have to be.~Nefreet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
