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.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
