Activities - John Francis walks the Earth
Coming into this video with strong views on the world, you’ll find yourself questioning your knowledge that you believe to be true. John Francis has a way of talking that allows your mind to expand just by listening to him. With smooth following philosophies on life and the environment, he able to portray his points to the audience.
Perspectives on life, and how environmental impacts, can affect people in different ways. For John an oil spill caused him to give up his normal life and take action (TED,2010). This show how interconnected people and the environment can be. He didn’t have to do anything, like many people do, but he decided to take action. Having a green mentality with the environment can be a difficult thing to stick with. Many people view actions as insults to them for not being green or just a waste of time. The mentality is that people will follow, or help you with your cause, only to find many people just don’t care. Not everyone can take action and change.
After watching the video a couple times, I began to understand why John took certain actions, such as not talking or driving for seventeen years (TED,2010). The simple aspect of just listening is a skill that few can understand, and follow through with. I find myself doing exactly what he explained, of trying to think of a rebuttal to a person’s argument, before their argument is complete. I have personally missed information from not listening enough, and I though his explanation to be very valuable
Experience with determination, allowed John to receive degrees that he had not paid for yet, but exceptions were made, because he was an exceptional person. I like that part of his story, because it allows people to see motivation and focus can get you anywhere you want to be, no matter what restraints may be in the way.
Listening transferred over to his teaching style, kind of like mime learning, but turned out to be more successful (TED,2010). The listening aspect brought more discussion into the class room between the students, in return brought new ideas and concepts. To me this showed that stepping out of line and trying new way of absorbing and gathering information, can lead to a better understand.
Everyone else was talking and he was listening, allowed him to make the concept of “people are the environment, and we must understand the people in order to understand the environment” (TED,2010). This view was new to me, and I understand why he though this now. The environment is an interconnected system, with people being a large part of it. If people are not understood first, it will be impossible to understand how and why people interact with natural environment.
Progression was talked about next, and like motivation I enjoyed this topic. Focus was pointed in the direction of taking the next step, of many, in your life. Using the metaphor of a “prison”, he was able to show how staying in a certain place for too long, is imprisoning yourself from experiencing life to its fullest (TED,2010). Being an activist, makes people get out and try new things, travel, and take risks, all of which are necessary to increase a better understanding of your surrounding environments (TED,2010).
“Impacts we experience are vital, we are the environment, and how we treat each other, is how we will treat the environment” (TED,2010). That statement at the end of John speak, allowed me to make the connections of his topics into one. His initially concern with the environment lead him to understand why people weren’t as concerned as he was. Though his determination, people saw is motivation and helpful towards him. In return people being nice to him, John continued his journey till eventually through listening, focusing, exploring, he could help the environment. The cycle itself is connected in a negative loop manner; it only puts out what you put in, in John’s case that was a lot.
Watching John Francis speak, give me new insight on many important “life” topics, which I believe will go beyond this course.
References
TED (2010) “John Francis walks the Earth”, Retrieved January 20, 2010, from: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/john_francis_walks_the_earth.html
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Blog 1 - - - Class Reflections - Precautionary Principles
What are your thoughts on Precautionary Principles, should it be widely applied in environmental regulations? And will this have serious negative impacts?
The definition provides a good aspect, by saying if we wait until we completely understand the problem, it will be too late to take appropriate action, as irreversible damage would have already of occurred. I can side with this argument, because much of the progress the world experiences relies on taking risks into the unknown, to eventually find the true answer through experience and time. The counter argument of not taking action until the problem is fully identified can be dismissed when looking at the overall costs and impacts, compared to taking actions when the topic is not completely understood. Basically saying, Impacts that have action taken on them right away will have lower costs trying to fix a small problem, than it would leaving the problem, in search for a complete understanding, and having to fix, if possible at that point, a major disaster.
Weather this principal should be widely used is up for debate. The environmental side will strongly agree, putting the environment in front of the cost/risk aspect. The government, also involved with protecting the environment to the best of there ability, will have a higher emphasis on the cost of project to the risk of the environment. Money will be the limiting factor whether or not this idea will become more accepted. It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the environment, but much of the funding is relied upon from the government. Responsibility the government will want an almost perfect understanding of the problem, to insure the money, which is limited, is spent on the most seriously problem first.
Cost effective view for the impact on the environment is not a positive view, Humans are endlessly changing and polluting the natural environment with new ideas and unlimited amounts of money. Without strong enough environmental taxes on polluters, the government only has a fraction of the money to counteract these actions. Negative impacts are most certainly to occur, not from the idea of using precautionary principals, but trying to find the unlimited funding need to carry out those actions. Business will continue to clash with environmental actions, as both fight each other to pay for our mistakes, but the real loser still remains the environment.
The definition provides a good aspect, by saying if we wait until we completely understand the problem, it will be too late to take appropriate action, as irreversible damage would have already of occurred. I can side with this argument, because much of the progress the world experiences relies on taking risks into the unknown, to eventually find the true answer through experience and time. The counter argument of not taking action until the problem is fully identified can be dismissed when looking at the overall costs and impacts, compared to taking actions when the topic is not completely understood. Basically saying, Impacts that have action taken on them right away will have lower costs trying to fix a small problem, than it would leaving the problem, in search for a complete understanding, and having to fix, if possible at that point, a major disaster.
Weather this principal should be widely used is up for debate. The environmental side will strongly agree, putting the environment in front of the cost/risk aspect. The government, also involved with protecting the environment to the best of there ability, will have a higher emphasis on the cost of project to the risk of the environment. Money will be the limiting factor whether or not this idea will become more accepted. It is everyone’s responsibility to protect the environment, but much of the funding is relied upon from the government. Responsibility the government will want an almost perfect understanding of the problem, to insure the money, which is limited, is spent on the most seriously problem first.
Cost effective view for the impact on the environment is not a positive view, Humans are endlessly changing and polluting the natural environment with new ideas and unlimited amounts of money. Without strong enough environmental taxes on polluters, the government only has a fraction of the money to counteract these actions. Negative impacts are most certainly to occur, not from the idea of using precautionary principals, but trying to find the unlimited funding need to carry out those actions. Business will continue to clash with environmental actions, as both fight each other to pay for our mistakes, but the real loser still remains the environment.
Blog 1 - - - Class Reflections - Critical Thinking and the Media
Consider the criteria for critical thinking, and how well do the media apply the seven areas?
The media has to look at the news as an opportunity to attract viewers, by explain what events are occurring around the world, not an easy job to manage. When you add in the Critical Thinking aspects, it’s even harder. I will use an example, from my experience, on how a typical news story occurs on CNN, because they tend make the most mistakes, in my option.
Using the recent disaster of the earthquake in Haiti, many of the seven steps have been followed, or completely ignored. “Breaking News”, is usually right after the event has occurred, initial reports, are for the most part useless, except for letting people know something has happened. CNN always blows major stories out of proportion, to collect viewers. In this case with Haiti, Clarity, Accuracy, Depth, and Logic were thrown out the window. Many statements over or underestimated the power and severity of the event. Many reports, right after the event said hundreds of thousands of people are dead, when no numbers existed yet (CNN,2010), and continued to run a newscast with shallow points, not reflecting on the root causes.
Media companies are just that, there a company trying to make money, the more extreme an event sounds and is portrayed to be, the more people will tune in and watch. In no way am I saying Haiti wasn’t a disaster, but when media provides fabricate facts and impacts, there must be questions raised on where does the media get there media from? CNN does save face as stories continue, as more knowledge is gathered. Many of the initial shocking facts are retracted by realistic numbers and estimates. Depth and detail of factual information will begin to be the focus.
Once a story has been established, and the media has a grasp on the actual event, CNN becomes a world leader. It seems that one of the problems with the media is reporting on events “to soon”, before anyone knows what going on. Basis of reporting events is to provide the truth and unbiased view. Getting past the “shock value” of initial reporting, media coverage also has other sides
The most recent coverage on CNN has provided a good depth, ranging from how locals are dealing with the disaster, to how foreigners are getting home and providing aid. Dedicating the main channel to almost full coverage, allows for in depth periods, which can balanced out by clarity and scope on a broader view. Reasons CNN is a world leader (CNN,2010), is the ability to keep information flowing with enough details to entertain, but keep enough breadth and avoid dragging on a topic.
News is a valuable tool that follows Critical Thinking to an extent, or sometimes not at all. The best skill to have is questioning every source, even the news reported to be “true” through mass media. Unfortunately the reasons to be accurate and logical, is still to attract viewers and attention, other than that, media is the most efficient way to learn about events around the world.
The site used as a reference, is to show the trends in media coverage by CNN, the site show a range of early and more recent article covering the Haiti earthquake. After comparing early reports of the event and looking at currently posted articles, the news contradicts themselves with more accurate information, or betting critical thinking.
CNN (2010)”Haiti Earthquake”. Retrieved January 20,2010, From:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/haiti.quake/index.html?iref=allsearch
The media has to look at the news as an opportunity to attract viewers, by explain what events are occurring around the world, not an easy job to manage. When you add in the Critical Thinking aspects, it’s even harder. I will use an example, from my experience, on how a typical news story occurs on CNN, because they tend make the most mistakes, in my option.
Using the recent disaster of the earthquake in Haiti, many of the seven steps have been followed, or completely ignored. “Breaking News”, is usually right after the event has occurred, initial reports, are for the most part useless, except for letting people know something has happened. CNN always blows major stories out of proportion, to collect viewers. In this case with Haiti, Clarity, Accuracy, Depth, and Logic were thrown out the window. Many statements over or underestimated the power and severity of the event. Many reports, right after the event said hundreds of thousands of people are dead, when no numbers existed yet (CNN,2010), and continued to run a newscast with shallow points, not reflecting on the root causes.
Media companies are just that, there a company trying to make money, the more extreme an event sounds and is portrayed to be, the more people will tune in and watch. In no way am I saying Haiti wasn’t a disaster, but when media provides fabricate facts and impacts, there must be questions raised on where does the media get there media from? CNN does save face as stories continue, as more knowledge is gathered. Many of the initial shocking facts are retracted by realistic numbers and estimates. Depth and detail of factual information will begin to be the focus.
Once a story has been established, and the media has a grasp on the actual event, CNN becomes a world leader. It seems that one of the problems with the media is reporting on events “to soon”, before anyone knows what going on. Basis of reporting events is to provide the truth and unbiased view. Getting past the “shock value” of initial reporting, media coverage also has other sides
The most recent coverage on CNN has provided a good depth, ranging from how locals are dealing with the disaster, to how foreigners are getting home and providing aid. Dedicating the main channel to almost full coverage, allows for in depth periods, which can balanced out by clarity and scope on a broader view. Reasons CNN is a world leader (CNN,2010), is the ability to keep information flowing with enough details to entertain, but keep enough breadth and avoid dragging on a topic.
News is a valuable tool that follows Critical Thinking to an extent, or sometimes not at all. The best skill to have is questioning every source, even the news reported to be “true” through mass media. Unfortunately the reasons to be accurate and logical, is still to attract viewers and attention, other than that, media is the most efficient way to learn about events around the world.
The site used as a reference, is to show the trends in media coverage by CNN, the site show a range of early and more recent article covering the Haiti earthquake. After comparing early reports of the event and looking at currently posted articles, the news contradicts themselves with more accurate information, or betting critical thinking.
CNN (2010)”Haiti Earthquake”. Retrieved January 20,2010, From:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/haiti.quake/index.html?iref=allsearch
Blog 1 - - - Section 42
Selection 42 – Collapse
Examines the choices people make resulting in life or collapse. Collapse is a large event that is made of many smaller factorials. The smaller aspects are not powerful enough to collapse a community single handedly, but when combined, they can turn devastatingly impacting. Many past collapse follow similar pattered traits. Populations begin with strong numbers, rapid expansion, and good resources. Only to have conditions turn to marginal with environmental strain. The populations can begin to abuse and destroy natural resource, from higher demands and uncontrolled growth. Recipe for a collapse is usually the final result, as proven with ancient cultures of the world.
Comparing current societies to past ones, the human impact/demand has risen so greatly, that current there are more factors to consider now, than the ancient cities had to deal with. Many arguments today deal with the amount of risk a nation is willing to take, it will not be a doomsday event causing mass extinction, but will most likely be a change of lifestyle as resource availability declines. A collapse is more likely to be the leading cause of an end of nation over any other event.
Jared Diamond identified five main problems, when separate cause little risk, but when combined can lead to a collapse. When humans invade a landscape, people affect the fragility of the land. Abuse and misuse will turn vital soil structures useless, or care and competence will make the land plentiful.
Populations that migrate to new land are faced with new climates, or climate change. Changes to the climate can be both natural and human induced. Natural changes happen in long cyclic periods that may seem to have never happened before, when they actually have occurred far back in history. People become optimistic and view good conditions will last for a long time, and bad conditions with dissipate quickly. Climate can play a big part in societies well being and ability to adapt. Many cultures have succeeded and grown in tough conditions, such as the Inuit.
Neighbors play an important part in determining a collapse. Hostile and decrease support from friendly neighbors can spell disaster. Even though battles through military campaigns, are thought to have been won on the battlefield. The actual underlies of starvation, or inadequate supply, will cause the defeat of a nation by author. Losing friendly trading nations can have similar impacts on a society. When a nation is dependent on anther countries, supply line can be cut-off. Problems on the supplier’s side will reflect over to the receivers, causing both nations to weaken.
Societies form views and beliefs on how there people should act towards each other and nature. Some nations deal with issues to resolve them, and other will do a quick fix that never really solves the initial problem, many times adding to the likelihood of a collapse. As in the history of Greenland, the population was running short on food but would not result to eating the plentiful fish in the ocean; as a result, because of their beliefs of not eating fish, the population collapsed and died off.
Some factors can be weighted differently, requiring smaller deviation to impact a nation. Nation impacts and environments have to work together to provide the necessary economy for the human population, and also to manage and preserve the environment, in which these important resources are extracted from. If practiced properly, global collapse “should” be able to be avoided.
This last summary has got me interested in reading the rest of the book in which the article came from. The concepts are well based, with examples to expand on the concepts. Like the rest of the articles, it was very interesting, and I am enjoying reading more in-depth on topics that are only generally understood by the public. The five steps considered to lead a country to collapse, can be placed on any nation that has, and come out true, really a interesting concept.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 42. New York: McGraw-Hill
Examines the choices people make resulting in life or collapse. Collapse is a large event that is made of many smaller factorials. The smaller aspects are not powerful enough to collapse a community single handedly, but when combined, they can turn devastatingly impacting. Many past collapse follow similar pattered traits. Populations begin with strong numbers, rapid expansion, and good resources. Only to have conditions turn to marginal with environmental strain. The populations can begin to abuse and destroy natural resource, from higher demands and uncontrolled growth. Recipe for a collapse is usually the final result, as proven with ancient cultures of the world.
Comparing current societies to past ones, the human impact/demand has risen so greatly, that current there are more factors to consider now, than the ancient cities had to deal with. Many arguments today deal with the amount of risk a nation is willing to take, it will not be a doomsday event causing mass extinction, but will most likely be a change of lifestyle as resource availability declines. A collapse is more likely to be the leading cause of an end of nation over any other event.
Jared Diamond identified five main problems, when separate cause little risk, but when combined can lead to a collapse. When humans invade a landscape, people affect the fragility of the land. Abuse and misuse will turn vital soil structures useless, or care and competence will make the land plentiful.
Populations that migrate to new land are faced with new climates, or climate change. Changes to the climate can be both natural and human induced. Natural changes happen in long cyclic periods that may seem to have never happened before, when they actually have occurred far back in history. People become optimistic and view good conditions will last for a long time, and bad conditions with dissipate quickly. Climate can play a big part in societies well being and ability to adapt. Many cultures have succeeded and grown in tough conditions, such as the Inuit.
Neighbors play an important part in determining a collapse. Hostile and decrease support from friendly neighbors can spell disaster. Even though battles through military campaigns, are thought to have been won on the battlefield. The actual underlies of starvation, or inadequate supply, will cause the defeat of a nation by author. Losing friendly trading nations can have similar impacts on a society. When a nation is dependent on anther countries, supply line can be cut-off. Problems on the supplier’s side will reflect over to the receivers, causing both nations to weaken.
Societies form views and beliefs on how there people should act towards each other and nature. Some nations deal with issues to resolve them, and other will do a quick fix that never really solves the initial problem, many times adding to the likelihood of a collapse. As in the history of Greenland, the population was running short on food but would not result to eating the plentiful fish in the ocean; as a result, because of their beliefs of not eating fish, the population collapsed and died off.
Some factors can be weighted differently, requiring smaller deviation to impact a nation. Nation impacts and environments have to work together to provide the necessary economy for the human population, and also to manage and preserve the environment, in which these important resources are extracted from. If practiced properly, global collapse “should” be able to be avoided.
This last summary has got me interested in reading the rest of the book in which the article came from. The concepts are well based, with examples to expand on the concepts. Like the rest of the articles, it was very interesting, and I am enjoying reading more in-depth on topics that are only generally understood by the public. The five steps considered to lead a country to collapse, can be placed on any nation that has, and come out true, really a interesting concept.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 42. New York: McGraw-Hill
Blog 1 - - - Section 36
Selection 36 – The Population Explosion
Understanding the many steps to control and reduce the population numbers, and demands on the environment. People miss the overall view; the world’s major problem is over population, and not whether or not an individual has personal right to reproduce. In the long run it will not matter, if there is no food to feed the billions. The amount of people on the earth compared to the number of corporations created can show the impact; the population is taking on the environment. Growing Demands for power resources is damaging the environment. More land must be used in the fight to provide enough power for the population. Less people = Less power demand = Less impact on the environment. Trying to figure out who the culprit is to blame for power consumption, is people just pointing fingers. The first world blames the third world, and same goes the other way. In reality, rich nations with extreme lifestyles are still the top consumers
Understanding the problem and how to deal with it, has two determiners. The population can be grown to optimal or largest population earth can handle. Either way the overall goal still remains controlling the growth of people. Optimal population, allows people to equally live comfortably, but unfortunately that time has come and gone. The optimal number for that scenario was two billion, currently the earth hold almost six and a unsustainable draw on its resources.
Uncontrolled growth on earth is creating the same effects as the mass exactions in the past. Flora and fauna are deteriorating, and exactions rates are being accelerated. Major impacts are focused on the large draw on energy, required to support humanity. Using fossil fuels, negatively impacts the environment, while plentiful solar energy is not used efficiently yet.
Scenarios created by John P. Holdren, show how the earth can be adapted to survive with an ever growing population. Although many outcomes rely heavily on extremely efficient technologies, that do not exist currently. Many sustainable population models search for solutions to supply a population, when the focus would be on controlling the numbers of people, and using resources more responsibility.
Determining what practices, for population control, are culturally expectable, is a topic widely debated. Many arguments focus around the use of birth control, only applies to culture with smaller families. The largest families are located in third world countries, where conditions are substandard. The large family is need to provide security, that at least one child will grow to be an adult. The main focus then for population control should be raising the standard of living in these countries. Changes with equal rights, clean water, sewage, and most important, a government promoting birth control and smaller families, given the fact that a government is in place, and not corrupt. An example of a government that successfully controlled/reduced populations Mexico, showing the upper influence works.
With birth rates controlled, the problem will not be an instance fix. Population growth contains momentum, and takes time for it to die off. With declining birth rate the population with continue to grow for years and decades, depending on how much momentum was present.
Overall strategies are focused on the world working in unison to reduce power consumption in some areas, and increasing living conditions on others. Rich nations will have to cut power use to offset the increasing demand for poorer nations. Poor nations will require more power to upgrade living conditions, to become more efficient. The upgraded living conditions will bring more structure to the areas, creating more control on population and power consumption.
The world is a large place, but the human population is growing larger as well. Humans use to much damaging technology on the environment, and the population’s momentum is almost uncontrollable. With many nations over consuming, changes have to be made. Different lifestyle will face resistance, prying away from the American way of life.
This article was an interesting read, bring up new information and aspect not yet explored by me. The view on how the third world is impacting the world to such an extent, made me think, that population control really is the real problem, and not trying to find new and better power supplies. The earth has everything on it already to support a sustainable life, but when you have a population that can over draw the supply, and then you’re in trouble. I never had that view before this article; I had been lead to believe that power shortage/supplies and new technologies were the biggest problem. It’s weird how sometime the largest, most difficult problems are ignored until it’s too late.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 36. New York: McGraw-Hill
Understanding the many steps to control and reduce the population numbers, and demands on the environment. People miss the overall view; the world’s major problem is over population, and not whether or not an individual has personal right to reproduce. In the long run it will not matter, if there is no food to feed the billions. The amount of people on the earth compared to the number of corporations created can show the impact; the population is taking on the environment. Growing Demands for power resources is damaging the environment. More land must be used in the fight to provide enough power for the population. Less people = Less power demand = Less impact on the environment. Trying to figure out who the culprit is to blame for power consumption, is people just pointing fingers. The first world blames the third world, and same goes the other way. In reality, rich nations with extreme lifestyles are still the top consumers
Understanding the problem and how to deal with it, has two determiners. The population can be grown to optimal or largest population earth can handle. Either way the overall goal still remains controlling the growth of people. Optimal population, allows people to equally live comfortably, but unfortunately that time has come and gone. The optimal number for that scenario was two billion, currently the earth hold almost six and a unsustainable draw on its resources.
Uncontrolled growth on earth is creating the same effects as the mass exactions in the past. Flora and fauna are deteriorating, and exactions rates are being accelerated. Major impacts are focused on the large draw on energy, required to support humanity. Using fossil fuels, negatively impacts the environment, while plentiful solar energy is not used efficiently yet.
Scenarios created by John P. Holdren, show how the earth can be adapted to survive with an ever growing population. Although many outcomes rely heavily on extremely efficient technologies, that do not exist currently. Many sustainable population models search for solutions to supply a population, when the focus would be on controlling the numbers of people, and using resources more responsibility.
Determining what practices, for population control, are culturally expectable, is a topic widely debated. Many arguments focus around the use of birth control, only applies to culture with smaller families. The largest families are located in third world countries, where conditions are substandard. The large family is need to provide security, that at least one child will grow to be an adult. The main focus then for population control should be raising the standard of living in these countries. Changes with equal rights, clean water, sewage, and most important, a government promoting birth control and smaller families, given the fact that a government is in place, and not corrupt. An example of a government that successfully controlled/reduced populations Mexico, showing the upper influence works.
With birth rates controlled, the problem will not be an instance fix. Population growth contains momentum, and takes time for it to die off. With declining birth rate the population with continue to grow for years and decades, depending on how much momentum was present.
Overall strategies are focused on the world working in unison to reduce power consumption in some areas, and increasing living conditions on others. Rich nations will have to cut power use to offset the increasing demand for poorer nations. Poor nations will require more power to upgrade living conditions, to become more efficient. The upgraded living conditions will bring more structure to the areas, creating more control on population and power consumption.
The world is a large place, but the human population is growing larger as well. Humans use to much damaging technology on the environment, and the population’s momentum is almost uncontrollable. With many nations over consuming, changes have to be made. Different lifestyle will face resistance, prying away from the American way of life.
This article was an interesting read, bring up new information and aspect not yet explored by me. The view on how the third world is impacting the world to such an extent, made me think, that population control really is the real problem, and not trying to find new and better power supplies. The earth has everything on it already to support a sustainable life, but when you have a population that can over draw the supply, and then you’re in trouble. I never had that view before this article; I had been lead to believe that power shortage/supplies and new technologies were the biggest problem. It’s weird how sometime the largest, most difficult problems are ignored until it’s too late.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 36. New York: McGraw-Hill
Blog 1 - - - Section 32
Selection 32 – Our Stolen Future
The “Our Stolen Future” article is based around proving the link between synthetic chemicals being introduced into the environment, and there effects on the hormonal imbalance in animals and humans. The effects that are seen in animals, from the use of chemicals in the environment, should be looked closer upon, like a warning. The possible danger to humans so far, has been ignoring, in light of the less understood problem of cancer. The article examines the similarity between smaller mammals and humans, explaining that the hormone estrogen is basically identical in the species. Synthetic chemicals in the environment have show high levels of absorption in fatty tissue of animals. Problems are focused around the reproduction processes, because of the modification and dysfunction of estrogen from the chemical influence.
Many skeptics do not take seriously, when testing is done on animals to show what could happen to humans. Saying the test doses are unrealistically high, and animals do not react in the same way. Study done by Vom Saal, have shown that the unnatural synthetics, can actually cause more damage with a smaller dose, rather than a large one. Disproving the skeptics, by showing larger doses will result in underestimated numbers, rather than enlarging then. This observation has put the regular toxicology data right out the window, going against what was thought to be true, larger doses, worse results, but not in this case.
Animals can also be used as a window, to look at the future for humans. Smaller animals have smaller intergenerational gaps, than humans. The effects of a chemical being passed down and concentrated, through the generations, can be viewed in a short time relative to the human cycle. Research done on animals to observe effects, is very valuable. The Synthetic chemical is hard to observe/track, making it only clear when abnormalities present themselves, finding the slight patterns will be a keep focus, in prevents further contamination.
The hormonal disruption process is fully understood by scientist, and in result, has formed the “Wingspread Statement”. Scientists warn that humans are at risk, and certain chemicals must be controlled, to prevent further contact with the environment and humans. Human problems have already been observed, with dysfunctions, like in animals, with reproductive organs and functions. Although these cases are rare, fears are rising, that more serious complications are in the near future for many more people in contact with these chemicals.
Overall, science has realized the importance of the relationship between humans and animals, in providing an early warning system of possible contaminations and problems in the environment. The main problem still remains, is to convince people to take the warning seriously now, to avoid a large disaster later.
This article, I though gave a good insight and prove how unaware the general public is of this topic. I found myself agree with the skeptics at the start of the article, but then started to questions my beliefs. Although the article had enough depth to inform the reader, some points could have been expanded a bit more with examples. The impact of the topic has done its job, I am much more interested in this topic, and the conclusion leaves the reader wanting to expand their knowledge on the topic, and indirectly informing the public this way.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 32. New York: McGraw-Hill
The “Our Stolen Future” article is based around proving the link between synthetic chemicals being introduced into the environment, and there effects on the hormonal imbalance in animals and humans. The effects that are seen in animals, from the use of chemicals in the environment, should be looked closer upon, like a warning. The possible danger to humans so far, has been ignoring, in light of the less understood problem of cancer. The article examines the similarity between smaller mammals and humans, explaining that the hormone estrogen is basically identical in the species. Synthetic chemicals in the environment have show high levels of absorption in fatty tissue of animals. Problems are focused around the reproduction processes, because of the modification and dysfunction of estrogen from the chemical influence.
Many skeptics do not take seriously, when testing is done on animals to show what could happen to humans. Saying the test doses are unrealistically high, and animals do not react in the same way. Study done by Vom Saal, have shown that the unnatural synthetics, can actually cause more damage with a smaller dose, rather than a large one. Disproving the skeptics, by showing larger doses will result in underestimated numbers, rather than enlarging then. This observation has put the regular toxicology data right out the window, going against what was thought to be true, larger doses, worse results, but not in this case.
Animals can also be used as a window, to look at the future for humans. Smaller animals have smaller intergenerational gaps, than humans. The effects of a chemical being passed down and concentrated, through the generations, can be viewed in a short time relative to the human cycle. Research done on animals to observe effects, is very valuable. The Synthetic chemical is hard to observe/track, making it only clear when abnormalities present themselves, finding the slight patterns will be a keep focus, in prevents further contamination.
The hormonal disruption process is fully understood by scientist, and in result, has formed the “Wingspread Statement”. Scientists warn that humans are at risk, and certain chemicals must be controlled, to prevent further contact with the environment and humans. Human problems have already been observed, with dysfunctions, like in animals, with reproductive organs and functions. Although these cases are rare, fears are rising, that more serious complications are in the near future for many more people in contact with these chemicals.
Overall, science has realized the importance of the relationship between humans and animals, in providing an early warning system of possible contaminations and problems in the environment. The main problem still remains, is to convince people to take the warning seriously now, to avoid a large disaster later.
This article, I though gave a good insight and prove how unaware the general public is of this topic. I found myself agree with the skeptics at the start of the article, but then started to questions my beliefs. Although the article had enough depth to inform the reader, some points could have been expanded a bit more with examples. The impact of the topic has done its job, I am much more interested in this topic, and the conclusion leaves the reader wanting to expand their knowledge on the topic, and indirectly informing the public this way.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 32. New York: McGraw-Hill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
