Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Blog 3 - - - Class Reflections - Food Video
The movie in class on food supply, and understanding of where our food comes from, made very good points on the impacts on nature and humans. Understanding theses key concepts allow people to be more aware and make healthier choices when finding food. Making the link between healthcare and food supply, put into reality where the actual cost are being generated. If you don’t feed someone today, you’ll be paying for their healthcare tomorrow when they become sick. The poor shouldn’t be fed off the left over’s from the rich, a more streamed lined system of equally distributed food will allow society as a whole become more efficient, and with less taxes to pay. If Brazil is able to create an equal food system, then Canada should have no problems, we do have more resources available. An education seems to always become a major factor in any problems being faced. A public that is educated on the benefits of locally grown food and the importance of food safety. This approach will turn the public away from processed foods and more towards naturally grown. It also help to cut down on pollution, by minimizing the amount of transportation required to get from grower to the market. People want to eat good food, but are unable to find cheap or available food, with proper nutrition. Buying from the local market creates a bond between the supplier and the customer, and most of the time brings a community closer, turning grocery shopping into a social event. This system works, but education is required and the change will be slow. If successful, the quality of life for the individual and society will greatly increase. The overall goal remains the same, to change the view of food from a commodity to a common good, leaving no person hungry.
Blog 3 - - - Activities - Edward Burtynsky – Manufactured Landscapes
Being inspired by nature in Canada, Ed is able to capture the dynamics of untouched nature, only formed by geological time. The combination of the human impacts that change the environment dramatically, and the mind thought of the scale of nature, produces photos that inspire and bring disbelief of the amount of power and mass modifications that humans are capable of. The pictures bring sobriety to the actual impacts our thirst less society, and how our landscapes are almost as breath taking as natures, except natures is not corrosive to the environment. Even with some pictures show destruction or pollution, Ed is able to bring a sense of forbidden pleasure to enjoy the beauty of something we would usually protest. The pictures not only focus on the downfalls of humanity, but also the reusing and recycling side, in a way like redemption. Highlighting that human process through industry has many sides, all worth looking at. Through the photos, time and effects can be measured. Good example of extreme modification of a landscape is the three gorges dam. It showed three uses of the same land within one culture, first as being nature, then being developed into cites, only to be disassembled and flooded for power generation. Landscapes within the grasp of humans seem to never be safe; enough people with determination can change anything. Not only modification to structures can be amazing. The presences of people themselves can create a landscape. Many people can create the feeling of warmth or confinement in a picture, whereas the absence of people in a desert can be portrayed as freedom or emptiness. Edward is able to show through his pictures that landscapes are only temporary event, always being changed, ether by natural or human influences.
I have seen his work personally at the ROA, when it was on display. The pictures of ordinarily dismissed objects had me in a trance for minutes at a time looking at the fine details that are usually quickly passed over. Images with such scale and presents allow the onlooker to become deeply connect with not only the photo, but what is creating the photo. Options are formed whether the scene is beautiful, or a tragedy because it ends up being the result of a toxic spill. Ed making the view really thinks about the impacts of current society, and the individual. I find his work amazing and enjoyable to constantly look upon.
I have seen his work personally at the ROA, when it was on display. The pictures of ordinarily dismissed objects had me in a trance for minutes at a time looking at the fine details that are usually quickly passed over. Images with such scale and presents allow the onlooker to become deeply connect with not only the photo, but what is creating the photo. Options are formed whether the scene is beautiful, or a tragedy because it ends up being the result of a toxic spill. Ed making the view really thinks about the impacts of current society, and the individual. I find his work amazing and enjoyable to constantly look upon.
Blog 3 - - - Reflections - Canadian Parks
Canadian parks are designed to offer protection to species and a glimpse of pristine nature to the public. Within the first goal of Canadian parks is a problem, people in large amount are not natural to the environment. The protection side of Canadian parks for wild life is quite good in most cases. Many of the parks are located clearly up north away from population, allowing natural wildlife to live in peace. While on the other hand some parks, such as Banff, are harshly segmented with a highway, disrupting natural wildlife paths and habits. Access also plays a major part of creating parks with government money. People want to enjoy nature and the country that they live in. Unfortunately people face the same problems as wildlife with restrictions. Many parks are great distance away from major cities, and no roads available even for the adventurous. Some parks don’t even allow people to freely walk around, in fear of wildlife attacks. Parks that are located in central areas also dissatisfy nature lovers. Many people enjoy skiing and hiking at national parks, but wildlife seems to be displaced with industry and commercial business. It seems that access to parks by humans and wildlife is a fine balance, and many parks currently are one sided.
The example park of Wapusk has the problem of being very remote, and journeys are usually reserved for researchers and guided tours only. Privileges to roam freely and hunt are reserved to the natives, but is only right seeing how they have lived there for decades. It is hard to bring people to remote locations without roads and large amounts of dangerous wildlife, but solutions are possible. The easiest and most damaging fix would be to construct a road to a section of the park. This would greatly impact the environment, and hasn’t been done for understandable reasons. The current methods of flying in and taking the train seem acceptable, given the amount of people making the journey each year. A major issue to address before masses of uneducated people start pouring north is the large population of polar bears in the park. This is a very hard problem to solve, seeing how the land is technically their habitat. Today large fenced in areas are the only safe zone for people, not to attractive to a visitor. Models from Churchill and there ability to deal with polar bears might be useful for introducing more people to the area. Unfortunately, bring a larger population of people in to the area will require modification to the landscape, with negative impacts. If the park opens up some land for small sensibly controlled development and seasonal hunting regulation, the park might be able to create a balance between protection and access. If no modifications are done, it will continue to be research based visitors in a almost perfect natural park, and to me there is nothing wrong with that.
The example park of Wapusk has the problem of being very remote, and journeys are usually reserved for researchers and guided tours only. Privileges to roam freely and hunt are reserved to the natives, but is only right seeing how they have lived there for decades. It is hard to bring people to remote locations without roads and large amounts of dangerous wildlife, but solutions are possible. The easiest and most damaging fix would be to construct a road to a section of the park. This would greatly impact the environment, and hasn’t been done for understandable reasons. The current methods of flying in and taking the train seem acceptable, given the amount of people making the journey each year. A major issue to address before masses of uneducated people start pouring north is the large population of polar bears in the park. This is a very hard problem to solve, seeing how the land is technically their habitat. Today large fenced in areas are the only safe zone for people, not to attractive to a visitor. Models from Churchill and there ability to deal with polar bears might be useful for introducing more people to the area. Unfortunately, bring a larger population of people in to the area will require modification to the landscape, with negative impacts. If the park opens up some land for small sensibly controlled development and seasonal hunting regulation, the park might be able to create a balance between protection and access. If no modifications are done, it will continue to be research based visitors in a almost perfect natural park, and to me there is nothing wrong with that.
Blog 3 - - - Section 26
Climate Change 2007
The effects of green house gases on the climate and how early and so called “expensive” solutions now, will be substantially cheaper than ignoring the problem, and trying to fix it in the future. Primary impacts of burning fossil fuels and land use change are the effects of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The large amounts present today, blow past post industrial revolution estimates out of the water. Both CO2 and Methane rates have exceeded the natural fluctuation points. Although CO2 and demand for oil has been declining slowly, methane has been increasing and is being blamed on anthropogenic activities. Reasons for the climate to change can be focused on three main sources. Radioactive forcing from green house gases and change in surface albedo are responsible for warming the planet, and anthropogenic contributions, like ash from a volcano, are responsible for adding aerosols and cooling the planet. Current trends in warming are showing to be the warmest in the past 200 years, and with a positive linear progression. The warming effect is causing ice and snow to melt, increasing the amounts of liquid water available and present in the atmosphere. It also directly affects the swelling and rising levels of the sea. Temperature will increases rapidly in some areas like the poles, melting ice, and slowly in others like the equator. Equator changes will create droughts and extreme precipitation. Around the poles the temperature is expected to become warm enough to decrease the amount of permafrost and year to year sea ice. The warmer atmosphere will create problems with heavy evaporation and precipitation. Areas will become “Freshened” and others will contain much more salinity in the oceans. Cold nights and cold days are being replaced with more frequent hot days, and longer lasting heat waves, allowing more turbulent storms to form and impact humanity. Fortunately not all warming has been caused by humans. Links have been made to show the effects of anthropogenic influences. This external force can be shown to affect all the stages of global warming, in a natural cycle. Since local and global feedback on this effect is hard to measure, it is hard to determine how much of an influence there really has been. Current projections of radiation impacts, shows the world has a constant warming over the past eight decades. If current rates were held constant and were to continue, the slow response from ocean warming and cooling could carry the effects well into the future. Solutions for global warming are a very long term project. Goals today revolve around harnessing a controllable rate of temperature, and stop increasing. Technological advances in prediction software have made it possible to show more reliable outcomes, with more variables such as wind and extreme weather. The scenarios still predict that the greatest warming will occur overland at high latitudes, large thawing, and loss of sea ice, more consistent heat waves, and extreme weather increase. One of the noted impacts is the slowing or reversal of the mid-ocean currents, destroying the heat conveyor belt. This would cause major cooling of the oceans and land masses. Finding solutions today will require a better understanding of human’s and nature’s impacts on the climate. We are only half of the problem and even if solutions are found for both contributors, the long resident time of CO2 and its warming effects could be felt until 2300.
Learning about global warming I have always thought of it to be a natural cycle, with minimal influence from humans and fossil fuels. This article was easy to agree as it address both points and there effects. It was interesting to learn that the effect might be felt far into the future, even beyond my expectations. Even though I think parts are more natural than human induced, I strong believe in reducing pollution emission for a healthier lifestyle.
The effects of green house gases on the climate and how early and so called “expensive” solutions now, will be substantially cheaper than ignoring the problem, and trying to fix it in the future. Primary impacts of burning fossil fuels and land use change are the effects of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The large amounts present today, blow past post industrial revolution estimates out of the water. Both CO2 and Methane rates have exceeded the natural fluctuation points. Although CO2 and demand for oil has been declining slowly, methane has been increasing and is being blamed on anthropogenic activities. Reasons for the climate to change can be focused on three main sources. Radioactive forcing from green house gases and change in surface albedo are responsible for warming the planet, and anthropogenic contributions, like ash from a volcano, are responsible for adding aerosols and cooling the planet. Current trends in warming are showing to be the warmest in the past 200 years, and with a positive linear progression. The warming effect is causing ice and snow to melt, increasing the amounts of liquid water available and present in the atmosphere. It also directly affects the swelling and rising levels of the sea. Temperature will increases rapidly in some areas like the poles, melting ice, and slowly in others like the equator. Equator changes will create droughts and extreme precipitation. Around the poles the temperature is expected to become warm enough to decrease the amount of permafrost and year to year sea ice. The warmer atmosphere will create problems with heavy evaporation and precipitation. Areas will become “Freshened” and others will contain much more salinity in the oceans. Cold nights and cold days are being replaced with more frequent hot days, and longer lasting heat waves, allowing more turbulent storms to form and impact humanity. Fortunately not all warming has been caused by humans. Links have been made to show the effects of anthropogenic influences. This external force can be shown to affect all the stages of global warming, in a natural cycle. Since local and global feedback on this effect is hard to measure, it is hard to determine how much of an influence there really has been. Current projections of radiation impacts, shows the world has a constant warming over the past eight decades. If current rates were held constant and were to continue, the slow response from ocean warming and cooling could carry the effects well into the future. Solutions for global warming are a very long term project. Goals today revolve around harnessing a controllable rate of temperature, and stop increasing. Technological advances in prediction software have made it possible to show more reliable outcomes, with more variables such as wind and extreme weather. The scenarios still predict that the greatest warming will occur overland at high latitudes, large thawing, and loss of sea ice, more consistent heat waves, and extreme weather increase. One of the noted impacts is the slowing or reversal of the mid-ocean currents, destroying the heat conveyor belt. This would cause major cooling of the oceans and land masses. Finding solutions today will require a better understanding of human’s and nature’s impacts on the climate. We are only half of the problem and even if solutions are found for both contributors, the long resident time of CO2 and its warming effects could be felt until 2300.
Learning about global warming I have always thought of it to be a natural cycle, with minimal influence from humans and fossil fuels. This article was easy to agree as it address both points and there effects. It was interesting to learn that the effect might be felt far into the future, even beyond my expectations. Even though I think parts are more natural than human induced, I strong believe in reducing pollution emission for a healthier lifestyle.
Blog 3 - - - Section 16
Reinventing the Energy System
Finding the worlds energy system to benefit all, including humans and the environment. Inefficient energy has become too available and cheap for people to even consider the impacts of creating it. Due to the limited resources and now realized pollution problems with fossil fuels, humans may find themselves in a transitional period back to Homo Sapien time, where people were independent, with renewable resources, and strive away from today’s dependent, limited, non-renewable resources. The human population has been shaped through history through the availability and types of power. The current population is beginning to strive away from fossil fuels, leading to a major change effecting the future populations. The reason oil was initially used, was to keep up the demand of the industrial revolution. More power was need and sprawl was occurring, removing industry from housing, creating much larger grids.
A problem with oil today, is that the sources are becoming depleted, but oil using countries have little to no growth in consumption. The main problem is supply the third world countries as they come online as oil dependent countries. These countries face the same problem experienced in the early twentieth century, with health and pollution problems. The types of fuels chosen by societies are really chosen at all. They found by a need to make cheap and easy power, example would be the use of wood until coal was discovered to be more effective, in turn replace coal with the even better fossil fuel. The cycle continues as more and more power is required.
The cycle is changing, many technologies are emerging that are threatening to replace fossil fuels, but this time with still more power, but also much more cleaner. New technologies will depend not on who has the most money and land, but rather who is in the right location. For example who has the most sun, which has the most wind. Many underprovided countries, most third world, can be considered ahead, by having the location and already using small scale renewable energy. The diffusion of renewable energy sources may also lead to more global co-operation, and bring smaller, less developed countries back into the loop.
The change will only occur when the energy used today is not looked at as a commodity, but viewed as something to be valued and saved. Used in respect of the natural environment, giving the planet a new lease on life as being “Renewably Sustainable”.
A topic like this always makes me wonder what direction the human race is headed in. I know understand the driving force behind our decisions, and its power. It’s neat how certain types of power are used and adapted, and even why they are discovered, it’s all for a need of something better. I think our view is pointed in the right direction now, unlike in the past. We need more energy, but our concern is focused around being conservative, sustainable, and efficient. Those three factors only lead to a better world, only problem is finding all the right steps and processes to make it happen.
Finding the worlds energy system to benefit all, including humans and the environment. Inefficient energy has become too available and cheap for people to even consider the impacts of creating it. Due to the limited resources and now realized pollution problems with fossil fuels, humans may find themselves in a transitional period back to Homo Sapien time, where people were independent, with renewable resources, and strive away from today’s dependent, limited, non-renewable resources. The human population has been shaped through history through the availability and types of power. The current population is beginning to strive away from fossil fuels, leading to a major change effecting the future populations. The reason oil was initially used, was to keep up the demand of the industrial revolution. More power was need and sprawl was occurring, removing industry from housing, creating much larger grids.
A problem with oil today, is that the sources are becoming depleted, but oil using countries have little to no growth in consumption. The main problem is supply the third world countries as they come online as oil dependent countries. These countries face the same problem experienced in the early twentieth century, with health and pollution problems. The types of fuels chosen by societies are really chosen at all. They found by a need to make cheap and easy power, example would be the use of wood until coal was discovered to be more effective, in turn replace coal with the even better fossil fuel. The cycle continues as more and more power is required.
The cycle is changing, many technologies are emerging that are threatening to replace fossil fuels, but this time with still more power, but also much more cleaner. New technologies will depend not on who has the most money and land, but rather who is in the right location. For example who has the most sun, which has the most wind. Many underprovided countries, most third world, can be considered ahead, by having the location and already using small scale renewable energy. The diffusion of renewable energy sources may also lead to more global co-operation, and bring smaller, less developed countries back into the loop.
The change will only occur when the energy used today is not looked at as a commodity, but viewed as something to be valued and saved. Used in respect of the natural environment, giving the planet a new lease on life as being “Renewably Sustainable”.
A topic like this always makes me wonder what direction the human race is headed in. I know understand the driving force behind our decisions, and its power. It’s neat how certain types of power are used and adapted, and even why they are discovered, it’s all for a need of something better. I think our view is pointed in the right direction now, unlike in the past. We need more energy, but our concern is focused around being conservative, sustainable, and efficient. Those three factors only lead to a better world, only problem is finding all the right steps and processes to make it happen.
Blog 3 - - - Section 15
More Profit with less carbon
Abundance by design, to understand the benefits of business and the environment through renewable energy sources. Many people fear less carbon use means more pressure on the economy, only the opposite is true. It is cheaper to save fuel and use it efficiently, than it is to buy more fuel and use it wastefully. Less carbon allows more money to be saved and to be reinvested into the acceleration of global growth. New power sources are needed become less carbon dependent, and to cut down on wasteful energy conversion processes. Worst consumer with no benefit is standby power sources. The techniques used to accomplish maximum power conservation have to be explained and taught in detail, for acceptable results to be accomplished. Many small steps taken to add up to one much larger goal is harder to grasp, than one large step to equal one large goal. This is the current problem many people face. Efficiently is beneficial at all points of the service stream. Less power can be generated at the source, and less energy will be unnecessarily wasted at the consumer. Current construction views are much too narrow when it comes to factoring in green technologies, for power saving. The ability to see the broader picture, allows people to see upfront cost of more insulation, may result in no heating or cooling systems at all, making it actually cheaper. Components need to be added with a muilty purpose in mind, instead of many singular components working independent of each other. The benefits are much larger with option one. Initial cost is nothing, when compared to the outcomes of an efficient design. More money is saved in construction and overall operation costs. New techniques for smarter power systems are also safer and much more advanced. By not staying idol with current technologies, markets are accelerated into new materials and practices, bettering current ideas. An example is carbon fiber in cars. The reduction of oil consumption is already in progress, Ethanol and Natural Gas are said to be able to phase of convention oil by 2050. Elimination oil use from the world would not only benefit the environment, political conflicts would stop over natural resources as well. New technologies currently being used, is wind power. Wind is the best producing alternative energy source so far. The installation and running cost still come in much lower that current coal plants, but advances still have to be made to produce more energy.
It has been shown in the 80’s that carbon consumption isn’t need for growth to occur. In fact early in the decade the trend was high efficiently was out pacing economic growth. Allowing countries to grow, and have a shrinking power consumption.
The overall problem of greenhouse gas emissions still remains. Although the prevailing view of fixing the problem is still cheaper than leaving it. People have to understand that results are not going to be instant, and initial costs are actually cheaper than conventional methods. Benefits will come with efficiently, and energy saving choices are just that and not to be viewed as expenditures. Governments have to remove poorly designed incentives to use inefficient technologies and create an open market for new power supplies. The world will benefit both economically and environmentally.
This was an awesome read. I was completely uninformed about the progression of a nation with a even high progression of efficiently. The concept was interesting to explore, and kept me reading to understand the reasoning behind it. The new technologies used for building home and car will only make the world better, the public is beginning to understand the concept, but the governments are lacking behind, I think profits will be made either way, and politicians should stop worrying about making money off of old technologies, new one make money as well.
Abundance by design, to understand the benefits of business and the environment through renewable energy sources. Many people fear less carbon use means more pressure on the economy, only the opposite is true. It is cheaper to save fuel and use it efficiently, than it is to buy more fuel and use it wastefully. Less carbon allows more money to be saved and to be reinvested into the acceleration of global growth. New power sources are needed become less carbon dependent, and to cut down on wasteful energy conversion processes. Worst consumer with no benefit is standby power sources. The techniques used to accomplish maximum power conservation have to be explained and taught in detail, for acceptable results to be accomplished. Many small steps taken to add up to one much larger goal is harder to grasp, than one large step to equal one large goal. This is the current problem many people face. Efficiently is beneficial at all points of the service stream. Less power can be generated at the source, and less energy will be unnecessarily wasted at the consumer. Current construction views are much too narrow when it comes to factoring in green technologies, for power saving. The ability to see the broader picture, allows people to see upfront cost of more insulation, may result in no heating or cooling systems at all, making it actually cheaper. Components need to be added with a muilty purpose in mind, instead of many singular components working independent of each other. The benefits are much larger with option one. Initial cost is nothing, when compared to the outcomes of an efficient design. More money is saved in construction and overall operation costs. New techniques for smarter power systems are also safer and much more advanced. By not staying idol with current technologies, markets are accelerated into new materials and practices, bettering current ideas. An example is carbon fiber in cars. The reduction of oil consumption is already in progress, Ethanol and Natural Gas are said to be able to phase of convention oil by 2050. Elimination oil use from the world would not only benefit the environment, political conflicts would stop over natural resources as well. New technologies currently being used, is wind power. Wind is the best producing alternative energy source so far. The installation and running cost still come in much lower that current coal plants, but advances still have to be made to produce more energy.
It has been shown in the 80’s that carbon consumption isn’t need for growth to occur. In fact early in the decade the trend was high efficiently was out pacing economic growth. Allowing countries to grow, and have a shrinking power consumption.
The overall problem of greenhouse gas emissions still remains. Although the prevailing view of fixing the problem is still cheaper than leaving it. People have to understand that results are not going to be instant, and initial costs are actually cheaper than conventional methods. Benefits will come with efficiently, and energy saving choices are just that and not to be viewed as expenditures. Governments have to remove poorly designed incentives to use inefficient technologies and create an open market for new power supplies. The world will benefit both economically and environmentally.
This was an awesome read. I was completely uninformed about the progression of a nation with a even high progression of efficiently. The concept was interesting to explore, and kept me reading to understand the reasoning behind it. The new technologies used for building home and car will only make the world better, the public is beginning to understand the concept, but the governments are lacking behind, I think profits will be made either way, and politicians should stop worrying about making money off of old technologies, new one make money as well.
Blog 3 - - - Section 4
A Sand County Almanac
Ethical connections made between humans and living and non-living components of nature. A quick choice, such as killing a wolf, can have much larger impacts than expected that can only be completely seen by a mountain. Wolves provide a balance to the deer population, without control the mountain can die from an unbalanced cycle. Too many deer will over graze and over populate, killing both the animal population and wiping out the natural biota. This affects my damage the mountain for many generations, depending on the regeneration cycle, if one ever occurs.
Ethical understanding combines the struggle for survival and social conduct, resulting in civil co-operation among a system. This applies for both ecological and philosophical views. The process begins with individual interaction, only to be advanced to social – individual interaction with democracy and “the golden rule”. Land ethics is difficult because it’s still viewed as property, without determined or defined obligations and/or responsibilities. Land ethics is the last step that in to be taken, and it’s vital for the protection and sustainability of the environment. The natural value of land is overlooked for its economic value. Modern views can be said to be “Outgrown” and substitutes are preferred, like synthetics. Education remains a problem, avoiding the direct topics and continuing to direct land as a economic problem, and overlooked the value of the natural biota. Economist have tried to convince that all land use is centered around economic determinates, or how money can be made.
Ethics are never written down, but are formed as an evolution in the minds of a thinking community. Social approbation controls the right from the wrong and as land ethics move from the individual to the community, the land will become more influenced as “land use” decisions on a larger, more eco-friendly scale.
Ethics are extremely important in the world today, especially with some many dangers to the environment. The idea of land conversion to public decisions will be a hard change. There is large amounts of money invest in land, and I think the approach of introducing responsibilities and regulation to land use will be the easiest, yet still challenging, change to instate. The trend of education throughout the topics this time around really highlights the power of knowledge, and why it’s hard to convince or explain impacts to people who don’t understand completely.
Ethical connections made between humans and living and non-living components of nature. A quick choice, such as killing a wolf, can have much larger impacts than expected that can only be completely seen by a mountain. Wolves provide a balance to the deer population, without control the mountain can die from an unbalanced cycle. Too many deer will over graze and over populate, killing both the animal population and wiping out the natural biota. This affects my damage the mountain for many generations, depending on the regeneration cycle, if one ever occurs.
Ethical understanding combines the struggle for survival and social conduct, resulting in civil co-operation among a system. This applies for both ecological and philosophical views. The process begins with individual interaction, only to be advanced to social – individual interaction with democracy and “the golden rule”. Land ethics is difficult because it’s still viewed as property, without determined or defined obligations and/or responsibilities. Land ethics is the last step that in to be taken, and it’s vital for the protection and sustainability of the environment. The natural value of land is overlooked for its economic value. Modern views can be said to be “Outgrown” and substitutes are preferred, like synthetics. Education remains a problem, avoiding the direct topics and continuing to direct land as a economic problem, and overlooked the value of the natural biota. Economist have tried to convince that all land use is centered around economic determinates, or how money can be made.
Ethics are never written down, but are formed as an evolution in the minds of a thinking community. Social approbation controls the right from the wrong and as land ethics move from the individual to the community, the land will become more influenced as “land use” decisions on a larger, more eco-friendly scale.
Ethics are extremely important in the world today, especially with some many dangers to the environment. The idea of land conversion to public decisions will be a hard change. There is large amounts of money invest in land, and I think the approach of introducing responsibilities and regulation to land use will be the easiest, yet still challenging, change to instate. The trend of education throughout the topics this time around really highlights the power of knowledge, and why it’s hard to convince or explain impacts to people who don’t understand completely.
Blog 3 - - - Section 3
Principals of Conservation
Conserve for nature, or to conserve for human consumption. Conservation began with the forestry industry in 1908, and moved onward from there to other sectors. The term conservation can be broken into three stages, starting with development. The development view prioritized natural resources for the present generation first, to meet all their needs, and for future generations second. Making the goal of conservation more society based, rather than an environmental focus. Even though consumption of natural resources was part of conservation, the second point is more concerned with sustainability. The management of waste produced from using conservation techniques, was a major concern. Interested in minimizing waste produced, many functions and processes were streamed line, or more efficient ways were used. An example would be in the transportation industry, switching from rail to shipping. Waste control became a priority, and eventually leads to the formation and practice of controlling forest fires. Conservation deemed what was acceptable amounts of waste produced in industry and event nature, hence the forest fire control. Even though waste was a problem, providing the information and a clear understanding was an even larger problem. Education and understanding of controllable problems are well understood much in advance, before actions are put into motion to prevent the production of waste. The third point of conservation is resources benefit many and not the profits for the few. Resources should be used in the most efficient way to benefit the most people and to be sustainable. Conservation can be applied to many problems, and is a good tool for applying common sense to make an efficient and ethical decision. Overall conservation adds structure to choices and estimates incomes and impacts from these decisions. Final decisions apply more to benefiting the public as a whole presently and for future generations.
The invention of conservation allows the society the ability to see right from wrong. I think this has many good points, but not a perfect system. Having large amounts of people involved in decision making is a good idea for controlling the future of resource responsibility. The first rule is a bit to consuming for me though, I don’t think that the present resources should be used to their maximum benefit, I think they should be used in a conservative way, not using more than needed. The concept did change the world and the societies that adapted it.
Conserve for nature, or to conserve for human consumption. Conservation began with the forestry industry in 1908, and moved onward from there to other sectors. The term conservation can be broken into three stages, starting with development. The development view prioritized natural resources for the present generation first, to meet all their needs, and for future generations second. Making the goal of conservation more society based, rather than an environmental focus. Even though consumption of natural resources was part of conservation, the second point is more concerned with sustainability. The management of waste produced from using conservation techniques, was a major concern. Interested in minimizing waste produced, many functions and processes were streamed line, or more efficient ways were used. An example would be in the transportation industry, switching from rail to shipping. Waste control became a priority, and eventually leads to the formation and practice of controlling forest fires. Conservation deemed what was acceptable amounts of waste produced in industry and event nature, hence the forest fire control. Even though waste was a problem, providing the information and a clear understanding was an even larger problem. Education and understanding of controllable problems are well understood much in advance, before actions are put into motion to prevent the production of waste. The third point of conservation is resources benefit many and not the profits for the few. Resources should be used in the most efficient way to benefit the most people and to be sustainable. Conservation can be applied to many problems, and is a good tool for applying common sense to make an efficient and ethical decision. Overall conservation adds structure to choices and estimates incomes and impacts from these decisions. Final decisions apply more to benefiting the public as a whole presently and for future generations.
The invention of conservation allows the society the ability to see right from wrong. I think this has many good points, but not a perfect system. Having large amounts of people involved in decision making is a good idea for controlling the future of resource responsibility. The first rule is a bit to consuming for me though, I don’t think that the present resources should be used to their maximum benefit, I think they should be used in a conservative way, not using more than needed. The concept did change the world and the societies that adapted it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Blog 2 - - - Section 12
Ecosystems and Human well-being
Understand current impacts and changing actions to become sustainable in the future. Poor ecosystem management for human gain, over the past fifty years, is proving to have harmful consequences. Over use of an ecosystem, destroys the necessary systems for other groups of people and future generations. Some impacts are serious enough to be irreversible, creating diseases and “dead zones”. Everything that is alive will be affected. Non-managed ecosystem changes can affect many areas. Taking one population out of poverty, can easily slip another population into its place, very fine balance that everyone is part of.
Major human impacts are climate change and nutrient loading, and there full effects will be apparent by the year 2050. The most vulnerable communities are poor rural locations, which rely on the natural system of the ecosystem. Sound management solutions now, can create multiple levels of sustainability for the future. But changes have already begun to occur, and still no action has been taken. The effects on the environment only get worse with time. Creating greater transparency throughout all users will spread responsibility and options. Allowing progress to begin, and involving everyone to accomplish a positive change in the ecosystem.
Problems the ecosystems are facing currently are constantly blamed on human activity. In the past fifty years, serious eco-problems can be linked to the speed of expansion and growth of the modern world. Larger environmental change has been to feed growing populations, and most of the land is converted to controlled agricultural practices, removing drainage and over tilling the land. The continuous change is simplifying the world’s biomass, eliminating unique species. High risk species are located in freshwater habits. Human and animal both require the service of the ecosystems, but human are indirectly adding pollution, limiting their effectiveness on purifying.
Changes have been positive, towards eliminating poverty. Fix one problem and another is created. Feeding everyone on earth, would have a massive toll on the environment, population control remains the focus of a stable sustainable ecosystem.
Understanding possible solutions, weather to wait until a problem arise, or to globally connect the worlds resource, still remains a difficult task, with little answers to help guide the decision. All scenarios have benefits and drawbacks, but a fine balance between human and ecosystem interaction is achievable. History has proven people can live in harmony with the ecosystems. Solutions for hunger are slow, especially in the areas most affected. Ecosystem failure, has a high impact on infant mortality rates, and also brings disease. Disease brings expensive drawback that could otherwise be spent on ecosystem renewal.
Intervention on current practices and ways of life can result in sustainable world by 2050. Life today will not be the same as in the future, if goals are going to be met. The human interaction with nature results in the loss of biodiversity, and people will therefore always be impacting the ecosystems, but it’s our choice on how much we effect.
Bottom line, current operations are not efficient enough to work in harmony with earth ecosystems. Industries have to change quickly to minimize further damage. As a precautionary protection program, human have created, protected ecological areas, to maintain impact free natural growth.
In the search for new substitutes to replace current polluter, the community has to be careful. New alternative are usually more expensive, and history has shown, might even be worse. Switching from wood fires, to fossil fuels, was better for people, much worse for the environment. Understanding indirect and drivers behind decision making is vital. A true system provides education of the processes, shows the values and benefits for both human and ecosystems, and how long the new advancement will take to better connect the community with the surrounding ecosystems.
I found this article hard to follow, and much drier than the rest of the articles previously read. The concept was clear enough to understand that people and the ecosystem is a very balanced machine, also humans are not immune to the changes caused by their own action. In a way, humans should look at their own bodies as environment being effect, and look at possible solution to live better, which in turn should allow a better insight on how ecosystems feel and react.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 12. New York: McGraw-Hill
Understand current impacts and changing actions to become sustainable in the future. Poor ecosystem management for human gain, over the past fifty years, is proving to have harmful consequences. Over use of an ecosystem, destroys the necessary systems for other groups of people and future generations. Some impacts are serious enough to be irreversible, creating diseases and “dead zones”. Everything that is alive will be affected. Non-managed ecosystem changes can affect many areas. Taking one population out of poverty, can easily slip another population into its place, very fine balance that everyone is part of.
Major human impacts are climate change and nutrient loading, and there full effects will be apparent by the year 2050. The most vulnerable communities are poor rural locations, which rely on the natural system of the ecosystem. Sound management solutions now, can create multiple levels of sustainability for the future. But changes have already begun to occur, and still no action has been taken. The effects on the environment only get worse with time. Creating greater transparency throughout all users will spread responsibility and options. Allowing progress to begin, and involving everyone to accomplish a positive change in the ecosystem.
Problems the ecosystems are facing currently are constantly blamed on human activity. In the past fifty years, serious eco-problems can be linked to the speed of expansion and growth of the modern world. Larger environmental change has been to feed growing populations, and most of the land is converted to controlled agricultural practices, removing drainage and over tilling the land. The continuous change is simplifying the world’s biomass, eliminating unique species. High risk species are located in freshwater habits. Human and animal both require the service of the ecosystems, but human are indirectly adding pollution, limiting their effectiveness on purifying.
Changes have been positive, towards eliminating poverty. Fix one problem and another is created. Feeding everyone on earth, would have a massive toll on the environment, population control remains the focus of a stable sustainable ecosystem.
Understanding possible solutions, weather to wait until a problem arise, or to globally connect the worlds resource, still remains a difficult task, with little answers to help guide the decision. All scenarios have benefits and drawbacks, but a fine balance between human and ecosystem interaction is achievable. History has proven people can live in harmony with the ecosystems. Solutions for hunger are slow, especially in the areas most affected. Ecosystem failure, has a high impact on infant mortality rates, and also brings disease. Disease brings expensive drawback that could otherwise be spent on ecosystem renewal.
Intervention on current practices and ways of life can result in sustainable world by 2050. Life today will not be the same as in the future, if goals are going to be met. The human interaction with nature results in the loss of biodiversity, and people will therefore always be impacting the ecosystems, but it’s our choice on how much we effect.
Bottom line, current operations are not efficient enough to work in harmony with earth ecosystems. Industries have to change quickly to minimize further damage. As a precautionary protection program, human have created, protected ecological areas, to maintain impact free natural growth.
In the search for new substitutes to replace current polluter, the community has to be careful. New alternative are usually more expensive, and history has shown, might even be worse. Switching from wood fires, to fossil fuels, was better for people, much worse for the environment. Understanding indirect and drivers behind decision making is vital. A true system provides education of the processes, shows the values and benefits for both human and ecosystems, and how long the new advancement will take to better connect the community with the surrounding ecosystems.
I found this article hard to follow, and much drier than the rest of the articles previously read. The concept was clear enough to understand that people and the ecosystem is a very balanced machine, also humans are not immune to the changes caused by their own action. In a way, humans should look at their own bodies as environment being effect, and look at possible solution to live better, which in turn should allow a better insight on how ecosystems feel and react.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 12. New York: McGraw-Hill
Blog 2 - - - Section 11
Will hurricane Katrina impact shoreline management?
Its going to happen again and again, why are they still building, and rebuilding? Determining when American patriotism should be replaced with realization is a hard task. People love the coastline, but it’s much more dangerous than it looks. Year after year houses are built, and then destroyed by nature, and it still remains a question why people don’t take the insurance and more somewhere safer. It might not be there fault. The government provides funding to rebuild, basically a waste of tax payers money.
Dauphin Island has adopted a new way of life. Constantly cleaning up destruction, and rebuilding houses. A total of five hurricanes have hit the island, with enough power to reshape and divide it in sections. Residents will naturally get the hint to move on, people can’t keep rebuilding forever. The government has different ideas, and still provides insurance and bailout money, keep residents firmly planted in the danger zone.
Beach replenishment is now being used to attract more people, or victims, to the coastline. Hurricanes can heavily impact coastlines, but the same effect is felt with coastline development, both are destructive forces. Coastal developments effect the beaches natural cycle, not allowing sand to return to form new beaches after hurricanes. It’s the houses causing the problems, not nature.
Beaches give the shoreline a safe feeling, promoting population growth and development. Beaches provide some protection against storms, but not much against any storm that has duration on an area. Human mitigation of the shoreline allows great use for people, but utterly destroys a recovering environment, which can take up to two years.
Beach replacement is like bait, it attracts people to the coast, they build, hurricane, everything is destroyed, federal money is injected to promote growth, they rebuild. Once people are situated on the coast from the bait, an endless cycle occurs until people begin to retreat from the coast.
Hopefully the federal government will soon realize, too much money is being wasted to rebuild in unstable areas, over and over again. To compound the problem, rising sea levels and warming oceans, are only promising to bring larger and more powerful storms to the already affected areas.
The federal government has some downfalls on not carrying out coastal retreat. Government is to compassionate to think of not helping the victims of a storm rebuild, medical and rescues will be provided. Residents and government are proud to back down. Leading to the point of being resilient and rebuilding, or is it really just risk taking with a hint of insanity. Coastal communities have to be able to see the risk, to be able to take preventive measures, many are too proud to admit they should have moved last time.
Government itself is to blame, for subsidizing coastal welfare checks for flood insurance and rebuilding. The private insurance sector has already realized to only offer extremely expensive insure to the area, because they know the house “will” be gone in a matter of years. Residents have also developed a dependence on the bailout money when a disaster strikes. In a sane world, the home owner chose to live there, and they should have to pay for living in a dangerous area. If that last statement were true, coastal retreat would be a much faster process.
A fair way of creating a federal retreat program would be to form a committee, to determine which areas are off limits for development, and to aid towns and residents with relocation.
Wetlands and barrier islands around Louisiana are experiencing problems as well. People in the area are also trying to absorb federal money to recreate the “storm protection” of these features. Problem is the destruction of the wetlands is being caused by the use of the levies in the area, none allowing sedimentation to occur. The barrier islands are nothing more than sandbars, providing minimal protection against storm surges. People need to be informed of the problems source before public money is handed out to fix a unfixable problem.
Overall public voice on anti-development is shadowed by large developers for beach front property. Power in number usually wins; the science community needs more support, to help show people the truth and dangers of living on the coast.
Interesting on how people are a creature of habit, even though there is evidence in the past of unfavorable consequences, people believe it won’t happen to them, and to no one’s surprise it always does. I think the government need to step up and move residents after a disaster, instead of rebuilding, no option at all. This would defiantly be a financial gain for the country in the long run, and would end throwing money into the ocean.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 11. New York: McGraw-Hill
Its going to happen again and again, why are they still building, and rebuilding? Determining when American patriotism should be replaced with realization is a hard task. People love the coastline, but it’s much more dangerous than it looks. Year after year houses are built, and then destroyed by nature, and it still remains a question why people don’t take the insurance and more somewhere safer. It might not be there fault. The government provides funding to rebuild, basically a waste of tax payers money.
Dauphin Island has adopted a new way of life. Constantly cleaning up destruction, and rebuilding houses. A total of five hurricanes have hit the island, with enough power to reshape and divide it in sections. Residents will naturally get the hint to move on, people can’t keep rebuilding forever. The government has different ideas, and still provides insurance and bailout money, keep residents firmly planted in the danger zone.
Beach replenishment is now being used to attract more people, or victims, to the coastline. Hurricanes can heavily impact coastlines, but the same effect is felt with coastline development, both are destructive forces. Coastal developments effect the beaches natural cycle, not allowing sand to return to form new beaches after hurricanes. It’s the houses causing the problems, not nature.
Beaches give the shoreline a safe feeling, promoting population growth and development. Beaches provide some protection against storms, but not much against any storm that has duration on an area. Human mitigation of the shoreline allows great use for people, but utterly destroys a recovering environment, which can take up to two years.
Beach replacement is like bait, it attracts people to the coast, they build, hurricane, everything is destroyed, federal money is injected to promote growth, they rebuild. Once people are situated on the coast from the bait, an endless cycle occurs until people begin to retreat from the coast.
Hopefully the federal government will soon realize, too much money is being wasted to rebuild in unstable areas, over and over again. To compound the problem, rising sea levels and warming oceans, are only promising to bring larger and more powerful storms to the already affected areas.
The federal government has some downfalls on not carrying out coastal retreat. Government is to compassionate to think of not helping the victims of a storm rebuild, medical and rescues will be provided. Residents and government are proud to back down. Leading to the point of being resilient and rebuilding, or is it really just risk taking with a hint of insanity. Coastal communities have to be able to see the risk, to be able to take preventive measures, many are too proud to admit they should have moved last time.
Government itself is to blame, for subsidizing coastal welfare checks for flood insurance and rebuilding. The private insurance sector has already realized to only offer extremely expensive insure to the area, because they know the house “will” be gone in a matter of years. Residents have also developed a dependence on the bailout money when a disaster strikes. In a sane world, the home owner chose to live there, and they should have to pay for living in a dangerous area. If that last statement were true, coastal retreat would be a much faster process.
A fair way of creating a federal retreat program would be to form a committee, to determine which areas are off limits for development, and to aid towns and residents with relocation.
Wetlands and barrier islands around Louisiana are experiencing problems as well. People in the area are also trying to absorb federal money to recreate the “storm protection” of these features. Problem is the destruction of the wetlands is being caused by the use of the levies in the area, none allowing sedimentation to occur. The barrier islands are nothing more than sandbars, providing minimal protection against storm surges. People need to be informed of the problems source before public money is handed out to fix a unfixable problem.
Overall public voice on anti-development is shadowed by large developers for beach front property. Power in number usually wins; the science community needs more support, to help show people the truth and dangers of living on the coast.
Interesting on how people are a creature of habit, even though there is evidence in the past of unfavorable consequences, people believe it won’t happen to them, and to no one’s surprise it always does. I think the government need to step up and move residents after a disaster, instead of rebuilding, no option at all. This would defiantly be a financial gain for the country in the long run, and would end throwing money into the ocean.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 11. New York: McGraw-Hill
Blog 2 - - - Section 7
The tragedy of the commons
Commonly owned resources are doomed, people will over use for personal gain, and not look at their impact on the system as a whole.
People enjoy using technology to understand and solve problems. Overpopulation is a result from neither. Therefore it has no technical solution. The problem isn’t completely understood by the human race yet ether. Many scientist are searching for new ways to grow food and adapt the world for a ever growing population, instead of trying to control, or reduce, the population and current, wasteful, ways of life.
Freedom within the commons brings ruins to all, abuse of a general source, will allow people to use without a limit, to only have maximum gain for themselves, not understanding the effects of a limited environment. Both cattle and children can be blamed for over grazing.
Educations of impacts can counter act the damaging actions of “Denial of impact”. Agriculture and commons go hand in hand with their existence. Enough history to understand the process and downfalls of the two, and people still fall victim to abusing a given amount of common land. Current commons are pasture land, Maritime (oceans), and natural parks, all of which are degrading from abuse.
Add in toxins to a public space, such as air, water, advertising and results can be devastating. One main problem arise with common ground, is when personally generated waste products, are cheaper not to deal with, and are left as a common area problem. This happens with population growth, the mass of surround people is too large for the given common ground, and is unable to sustain its naturally occurring cleaning and purifying systems. The system becomes overloaded, like a pasture has become “over grazed”.
In the natural environment, population is a self controlling operation. Too many offspring, cannot be supported by the current supplies the family can provide, some experience “die-off” and a sustainable population is reached. The problem is with the humans take on nature. Believes everyone has the right to the commons, the motion completely eliminates the natural way of controlling populations. Welfare allows inadequate families to over breed for self benefit and personal gain, while only adding to the downfall of society’s overpopulation problem.
The U.N. understands the problems humanity faces around the world, and aids situations with truth and justice. There population policy shows no understanding of everyone’s problem right now, of unsustainable living. The policy need to reevaluated, to aid the people it supposes to serve, with population control. Society needs to be able to call out an individual that abuses the commons, and use restrain to better the whole by the individuals conscience.
Mutual coercion allows the control and use of a commons in a not completely free way, but to add responsible use, so everyone can benefit from it, and to punish the over users. An example can be taxes. The commons don’t have to be perfect to be tolerable ether. Changes can be made to the system, negative and positive, to understand the impacts compared to the previous settings.
Today the commons are controlled as much as possible, but abuse from pollution, media, and pleasure are still a major problem. Population is still the major cause of over drawing on the limited resources of the common. Restraint is possible, as it was done in the past. Present restraint will be meet with resistance at first, but will become slowly accepted, as history has also showed.
Education of impacts and problems faced in the commons, allows people to understand necessary actions to keep the common ground sustainable and equal.
Putting the public system in terms of the “commons” really allowed me to understand the strain the system faces with population growth. The system itself contains the flaws that need to be fixed, in order to find a solution to the problem. It’s also frustration to know the system can be abused by individuals today, and the system is willing to deal with the problem of overpopulation and not population control.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 7. New York: McGraw-Hill
Commonly owned resources are doomed, people will over use for personal gain, and not look at their impact on the system as a whole.
People enjoy using technology to understand and solve problems. Overpopulation is a result from neither. Therefore it has no technical solution. The problem isn’t completely understood by the human race yet ether. Many scientist are searching for new ways to grow food and adapt the world for a ever growing population, instead of trying to control, or reduce, the population and current, wasteful, ways of life.
Freedom within the commons brings ruins to all, abuse of a general source, will allow people to use without a limit, to only have maximum gain for themselves, not understanding the effects of a limited environment. Both cattle and children can be blamed for over grazing.
Educations of impacts can counter act the damaging actions of “Denial of impact”. Agriculture and commons go hand in hand with their existence. Enough history to understand the process and downfalls of the two, and people still fall victim to abusing a given amount of common land. Current commons are pasture land, Maritime (oceans), and natural parks, all of which are degrading from abuse.
Add in toxins to a public space, such as air, water, advertising and results can be devastating. One main problem arise with common ground, is when personally generated waste products, are cheaper not to deal with, and are left as a common area problem. This happens with population growth, the mass of surround people is too large for the given common ground, and is unable to sustain its naturally occurring cleaning and purifying systems. The system becomes overloaded, like a pasture has become “over grazed”.
In the natural environment, population is a self controlling operation. Too many offspring, cannot be supported by the current supplies the family can provide, some experience “die-off” and a sustainable population is reached. The problem is with the humans take on nature. Believes everyone has the right to the commons, the motion completely eliminates the natural way of controlling populations. Welfare allows inadequate families to over breed for self benefit and personal gain, while only adding to the downfall of society’s overpopulation problem.
The U.N. understands the problems humanity faces around the world, and aids situations with truth and justice. There population policy shows no understanding of everyone’s problem right now, of unsustainable living. The policy need to reevaluated, to aid the people it supposes to serve, with population control. Society needs to be able to call out an individual that abuses the commons, and use restrain to better the whole by the individuals conscience.
Mutual coercion allows the control and use of a commons in a not completely free way, but to add responsible use, so everyone can benefit from it, and to punish the over users. An example can be taxes. The commons don’t have to be perfect to be tolerable ether. Changes can be made to the system, negative and positive, to understand the impacts compared to the previous settings.
Today the commons are controlled as much as possible, but abuse from pollution, media, and pleasure are still a major problem. Population is still the major cause of over drawing on the limited resources of the common. Restraint is possible, as it was done in the past. Present restraint will be meet with resistance at first, but will become slowly accepted, as history has also showed.
Education of impacts and problems faced in the commons, allows people to understand necessary actions to keep the common ground sustainable and equal.
Putting the public system in terms of the “commons” really allowed me to understand the strain the system faces with population growth. The system itself contains the flaws that need to be fixed, in order to find a solution to the problem. It’s also frustration to know the system can be abused by individuals today, and the system is willing to deal with the problem of overpopulation and not population control.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 7. New York: McGraw-Hill
Blog 2 - - - Section 6
The historical roots of our ecological crisis
Explain the process in which the human race has impacted and changed the environment and non-human nature. But with “Gods will that human exploit nature” what chance did we have. The problem has extended the blame towards the Christian beliefs. Believing that nature is provided, and to be abused, to support the human population. The environment can be modified in a controlled matter for human use. Overall the human population is changing the environment so much, that negative impacts on the environment are affecting humans. The largest impact on the environment has been the use and invention of science and technology. Nothing compares to the effects, and the most modification has been done since it has been introduced.
Even thought the impacts of science and technology are large on the environment, it is difficult to understand when the damage begins. Focusing on history, it can be said that science and technology have been affecting the world for some time now, maybe even 800 A.D. The many characters responsible for slowly dismantling the environment begin with: The Cannon’s and ingredients, and is followed soon after with fossil fuels, urbanisms, and the unholy nuclear war.
After the environment began to fall apart, man created a word to call it. They called it Ecology, in 1873, and it was intended to be used for the understanding the impacts of humans on the environment. Even with the word now to understand what humans are doing, the Democratic world cannot work. The culture still blends too much science and technology to not impact the surround environment.
Initial intentions were good, plowing was focused to support a single family and no more. Technology allowed for larger lots to be plowed, and people became greedy, over working and overgrowing on the land.
More impacting religion sprung back up in the middle Ages. Now many people believed that nature was connected to God directly, and could communicate to them. Science began to take serious views, and studying of the environment began. The more knowledge and understanding became clear, science became more dominate on factual proven data, and the God connection was dropped.
Man became more and more powerful in modifying and changing the environment, not thinking of the consequences. Ecological backlash may occur because of our environmental dominance attitude. When this backlash occurs, man will reach for science and technology for a solution, only to find the problem was science and technology, the sole cause, and can’t be used to fix the environment.
Overall the Christian belief is completely flawed and Hippocratic. Stating they are connected to nature, yet are supposed to use nature to benefit man, in some cases logging endangered lumber. The man-nature relationship of Christianity contradicts itself. No ecological relief can be made until Christian views are changed. Human and nature have to be treated equal, not one to dominate the other.
Saint Francis has been the only man to oppose this view, from the inside. Unfortunately he failed, leaving science and technology at a point now where ecological recovery will only happen with the creating of a new religion, based on the Franciscan Order of equalness.
Good article, Understanding the flaws of religion, brings to light why some people can make decision, and not belief the consequence will happen. It’s also surprising how made up beliefs can influence the actions and practices of people throughout time. Making environmental harm and abuse a way of life. I agree with the points and arguments within this article. Man and nature should be able to coexist on the factual bases of balance, and not be abused by dominance.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 6. New York: McGraw-Hill
Explain the process in which the human race has impacted and changed the environment and non-human nature. But with “Gods will that human exploit nature” what chance did we have. The problem has extended the blame towards the Christian beliefs. Believing that nature is provided, and to be abused, to support the human population. The environment can be modified in a controlled matter for human use. Overall the human population is changing the environment so much, that negative impacts on the environment are affecting humans. The largest impact on the environment has been the use and invention of science and technology. Nothing compares to the effects, and the most modification has been done since it has been introduced.
Even thought the impacts of science and technology are large on the environment, it is difficult to understand when the damage begins. Focusing on history, it can be said that science and technology have been affecting the world for some time now, maybe even 800 A.D. The many characters responsible for slowly dismantling the environment begin with: The Cannon’s and ingredients, and is followed soon after with fossil fuels, urbanisms, and the unholy nuclear war.
After the environment began to fall apart, man created a word to call it. They called it Ecology, in 1873, and it was intended to be used for the understanding the impacts of humans on the environment. Even with the word now to understand what humans are doing, the Democratic world cannot work. The culture still blends too much science and technology to not impact the surround environment.
Initial intentions were good, plowing was focused to support a single family and no more. Technology allowed for larger lots to be plowed, and people became greedy, over working and overgrowing on the land.
More impacting religion sprung back up in the middle Ages. Now many people believed that nature was connected to God directly, and could communicate to them. Science began to take serious views, and studying of the environment began. The more knowledge and understanding became clear, science became more dominate on factual proven data, and the God connection was dropped.
Man became more and more powerful in modifying and changing the environment, not thinking of the consequences. Ecological backlash may occur because of our environmental dominance attitude. When this backlash occurs, man will reach for science and technology for a solution, only to find the problem was science and technology, the sole cause, and can’t be used to fix the environment.
Overall the Christian belief is completely flawed and Hippocratic. Stating they are connected to nature, yet are supposed to use nature to benefit man, in some cases logging endangered lumber. The man-nature relationship of Christianity contradicts itself. No ecological relief can be made until Christian views are changed. Human and nature have to be treated equal, not one to dominate the other.
Saint Francis has been the only man to oppose this view, from the inside. Unfortunately he failed, leaving science and technology at a point now where ecological recovery will only happen with the creating of a new religion, based on the Franciscan Order of equalness.
Good article, Understanding the flaws of religion, brings to light why some people can make decision, and not belief the consequence will happen. It’s also surprising how made up beliefs can influence the actions and practices of people throughout time. Making environmental harm and abuse a way of life. I agree with the points and arguments within this article. Man and nature should be able to coexist on the factual bases of balance, and not be abused by dominance.
Reference
Easton T. (2009) Environmental Studies, Sections 6. New York: McGraw-Hill
Blog 2 - - - Activities - Andy Goldsworthy
Online activity: Review and reflect on the art work of Andy Goldsworthy
Andy’s work demonstrates the meaning of the previously reviewed articles, on being connected with our environment, and not tries and makes it better. His choice to use natural materials found at the sites, doesn’t introduce new materials or wastes. The art is also not permanently put together, it can serve as a temporary piece of art, and then nature reclaims the materials used.
The shapes used are all naturally occurring, no sharp corners, or planned out pattern. The designs seem to flow seamlessly with the environment, only making a slight complement. With the attitude “that the earth doesn’t need me, but I need the earth” (youtube 2010), show the respect that Andy has for his surroundings. Making art from nothing is very motivating, because you’ll never know what kind of supplies there will be to work with, or where the piece of art should be located. It’s all based on the environment when you get there. The ideas are almost given to you by nature, or even as far as nature is waiting for you to put what it’s left behind back together, into something beautiful.
I like Andy’s concepts and way of interacting with nature, although reclaiming is a needed natural process, it would be nice if some of the pieces could last a bit longer, to admire.
Reference:
Youtube (2010) “Rivers and Tides” Retrieved February 3, 2010, From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWBSMc47bw
Andy’s work demonstrates the meaning of the previously reviewed articles, on being connected with our environment, and not tries and makes it better. His choice to use natural materials found at the sites, doesn’t introduce new materials or wastes. The art is also not permanently put together, it can serve as a temporary piece of art, and then nature reclaims the materials used.
The shapes used are all naturally occurring, no sharp corners, or planned out pattern. The designs seem to flow seamlessly with the environment, only making a slight complement. With the attitude “that the earth doesn’t need me, but I need the earth” (youtube 2010), show the respect that Andy has for his surroundings. Making art from nothing is very motivating, because you’ll never know what kind of supplies there will be to work with, or where the piece of art should be located. It’s all based on the environment when you get there. The ideas are almost given to you by nature, or even as far as nature is waiting for you to put what it’s left behind back together, into something beautiful.
I like Andy’s concepts and way of interacting with nature, although reclaiming is a needed natural process, it would be nice if some of the pieces could last a bit longer, to admire.
Reference:
Youtube (2010) “Rivers and Tides” Retrieved February 3, 2010, From: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWBSMc47bw
Blog 2 - - - Reflections - Deeper Connection
Is a deeper connection to nature likely to influence out decisions? Management? Resource use? Waste generation? And values?
The connections between humans and nature are always going to be important, it our relationships with nature that can be a damaging one. I defiantly believe that the more education and understanding of our affect on the environment changes our future actions.
Decisions have been made although history involving nature, but for the most part they have been to benefit the growth and expansion of the human economy. Now that the effects of our past decisions are becoming more and more apparent, and concern for the environment are rising. People have a greener though pattern and are now concerned with potential effects a choice can make in the future. It only took a sever environmental down turn in the last fifty years, to make people become deeply connected with the environment to save what’s left, and prevent more damage. The degree decisions makes have with nature is a huge factor on choice that are made today.
The decisions today are only the start of the process; anything effecting the environment is carefully watched. Ecosystems are somewhat constant, but changes do occur. Making practice that were environmentally friendly ten years ago, might be out dated today and causing damage. Managing sites and understanding the natural cycles of nature, is a must if harmony between man and nature are to coexist.
Studying a given site is usually for a reason, the most impacting choice to modify an environment is to gain access to a resource. In the past people would search for resources and take what is needed, with no consideration of the impact of removing large quantities. Resources were also used as if there were no limit on the supply, over harvesting was also a problem. More knowledge and economic problems have change the way people think of resource. Understand how to harvest and have continual growth every year, has been a major focus. This has been proven with new farming and logging techniques. Keeping vital resources, like nutrient, in the ground benefits future harvest and keeps the ecosystem thriving.
People are efficient and thoughtful when making choices and using resource, still one problem is the waste generate. Landfills and burning waste is not a permeate solution. One program studying the reusing of already collected resource to make new ones is recycling. Recycling cuts down new extraction from the earth, and the amount of waste produced. It almost works like the natural environment, things grow, and they die, and then are reused to grow new things.
The more connect people become with nature, the better the planet function as a whole. The environment can support human activity, but the right choice and management are necessary to monitor impacts, to minimize damage.
The connections between humans and nature are always going to be important, it our relationships with nature that can be a damaging one. I defiantly believe that the more education and understanding of our affect on the environment changes our future actions.
Decisions have been made although history involving nature, but for the most part they have been to benefit the growth and expansion of the human economy. Now that the effects of our past decisions are becoming more and more apparent, and concern for the environment are rising. People have a greener though pattern and are now concerned with potential effects a choice can make in the future. It only took a sever environmental down turn in the last fifty years, to make people become deeply connected with the environment to save what’s left, and prevent more damage. The degree decisions makes have with nature is a huge factor on choice that are made today.
The decisions today are only the start of the process; anything effecting the environment is carefully watched. Ecosystems are somewhat constant, but changes do occur. Making practice that were environmentally friendly ten years ago, might be out dated today and causing damage. Managing sites and understanding the natural cycles of nature, is a must if harmony between man and nature are to coexist.
Studying a given site is usually for a reason, the most impacting choice to modify an environment is to gain access to a resource. In the past people would search for resources and take what is needed, with no consideration of the impact of removing large quantities. Resources were also used as if there were no limit on the supply, over harvesting was also a problem. More knowledge and economic problems have change the way people think of resource. Understand how to harvest and have continual growth every year, has been a major focus. This has been proven with new farming and logging techniques. Keeping vital resources, like nutrient, in the ground benefits future harvest and keeps the ecosystem thriving.
People are efficient and thoughtful when making choices and using resource, still one problem is the waste generate. Landfills and burning waste is not a permeate solution. One program studying the reusing of already collected resource to make new ones is recycling. Recycling cuts down new extraction from the earth, and the amount of waste produced. It almost works like the natural environment, things grow, and they die, and then are reused to grow new things.
The more connect people become with nature, the better the planet function as a whole. The environment can support human activity, but the right choice and management are necessary to monitor impacts, to minimize damage.
Blog 2 - - - Reflections - Environmental Ethics
Where do your environmental ethics lie? Anthropocentric? Biocentrism? Or Ecocentrism?
It is very important to understand how people view nature and themselves. Many people have strong options for certain aspects, and minimal knowledge on others. The key for understanding how you think of nature, is first to be educated on the resources and functions nature provides, and the needs and impacts people lives have. Everyone is different and so are the many ecosystems. Personality I have the view focused around Ecocentrism.
As my understanding grows on the vital processes of nature, my views have become less self centered, and more concerned with my choice and overall impacts my actions might have. View myself equal to nature, makes me more aware of the systems and functions all living things rely on to survive. It’s frustrating that large populations of wild animals are able to strive in cooperation with the environment, and have little to no impact. The basic model of survival, keeps nature sustainable and pure. Humans do use the environment in equal ways as well but are unable to not impact nature in return, making it unfair to other living creatures in the area.
Nature is a powerful tool for creating many variations. The harmony between living and non-living aspects creates amazing ecosystems, with strong and weak points. Example can be the creation of a certain way of life, surviving both dry and wet seasons with no problems when the system remains intact. Alterations can change or even destroy sustainability.
Current irresponsible actions of industry can contaminate water and air, dampening the effectiveness of an ecosystem, and effect all within. Humans should be learning how to live with nature as an equal, to find the hidden benefits, of medicine, structures, and unknown knowledge, instead of benefiting off of very pulmonary resource.
Over extraction of one part of the system will unbalance the rest, changing the functions and overall the ecosystem. The view of having a systematic environment will lose some diversity to maintain a working system. Unique species might be lost to save an impacted system.
Humans may damage certain areas, but also put aside land to save others. This shouldn’t have to be done in a systematic world. The human way of life is far from being part of the system, than it is dominating it. A more sustainable life style can tie human activity back into nature, and all living can learn from each other.
I enjoy learning new and interesting aspect of the environment, because there is no end of new discoveries and problems to be faced. Seeing connections and understanding how important everything is and the parts they play in completing the ecosystem.
It is very important to understand how people view nature and themselves. Many people have strong options for certain aspects, and minimal knowledge on others. The key for understanding how you think of nature, is first to be educated on the resources and functions nature provides, and the needs and impacts people lives have. Everyone is different and so are the many ecosystems. Personality I have the view focused around Ecocentrism.
As my understanding grows on the vital processes of nature, my views have become less self centered, and more concerned with my choice and overall impacts my actions might have. View myself equal to nature, makes me more aware of the systems and functions all living things rely on to survive. It’s frustrating that large populations of wild animals are able to strive in cooperation with the environment, and have little to no impact. The basic model of survival, keeps nature sustainable and pure. Humans do use the environment in equal ways as well but are unable to not impact nature in return, making it unfair to other living creatures in the area.
Nature is a powerful tool for creating many variations. The harmony between living and non-living aspects creates amazing ecosystems, with strong and weak points. Example can be the creation of a certain way of life, surviving both dry and wet seasons with no problems when the system remains intact. Alterations can change or even destroy sustainability.
Current irresponsible actions of industry can contaminate water and air, dampening the effectiveness of an ecosystem, and effect all within. Humans should be learning how to live with nature as an equal, to find the hidden benefits, of medicine, structures, and unknown knowledge, instead of benefiting off of very pulmonary resource.
Over extraction of one part of the system will unbalance the rest, changing the functions and overall the ecosystem. The view of having a systematic environment will lose some diversity to maintain a working system. Unique species might be lost to save an impacted system.
Humans may damage certain areas, but also put aside land to save others. This shouldn’t have to be done in a systematic world. The human way of life is far from being part of the system, than it is dominating it. A more sustainable life style can tie human activity back into nature, and all living can learn from each other.
I enjoy learning new and interesting aspect of the environment, because there is no end of new discoveries and problems to be faced. Seeing connections and understanding how important everything is and the parts they play in completing the ecosystem.
Blog 2 - - - Reflections - Alberta oil sands
What future would you like to see for the Alberta tar sands project?
With current needs for oil in the modern world, the Alberta oil sand project is vital for the Canadian economy. Many companies have billions of dollars invested in the mining and processing for the sands. To simply stop production, would be unfair to companies and residents of Fort McMurray. Progress needs to be made in the overall, becoming less oil dependent, before trying to focus in and close specific mines. The oil industry is not a clean program, it can be preventative and enforce environmental standards, but no industry can have a perfect record against accidents.
Current setup can always have room for improvements, even the oil sands. Everyone enjoys telling companies what to do, and request high standards to minimize environmental impacts. Many companies can reach these standards only to be told to do more. How can an oil production company going to keep funding changing standards. There needs to be a more secure, and bottom line approach for enforcing and making environmental laws. This hopefully could make both sides work together and not against each other, reducing the amount of hidden information on both sides.
Processing involving tailing ponds, which can be dangerous to surround water sources. The idea itself is good in theory, keeping the contaminated water out of the rivers and lakes. Problems with seepage and leaching should be addressed and fixed. Large corporations should be responsible for water quality, which has direct link to the processing. Deformities and possible cancer are being formed from contact with the water, and is a serious issue, but why is it only a paper battle of who’s right and wrong on the facts. There is no punishment to enforce negative actions on the environment, just a lot of arguing.
The area of Fort McMurray has one of the largest water treatment plants in Canada, and an air quality rating compared to the worse areas of china. These are all sign that the production of oil from oil sands is impacting the environment on many different levels. Every level of the ecosystem has its own set of limitations, it’s apparent that many of these limitations are coming close to their maximum, and changes need to be made to prevent a ecological disaster. Everything living will and can be effected from too much pollution.
Laws and restrictions do need to be enforced to have an impact. The government should be responsible for overseeing the policing of water and air quality, but also realize if a problem is found, possible losses in income can occur, from the reduced production as a result. Outside sources need to acquire to be affective in monitoring levels of pollution, which have no connections to companies or the government. Without such dramatic action, it will only continue to be a blaming war, on who has done what.
Environmental problems are the main focus, but what would happen to all the residents if the oil sands were to be shut down. The human aspect of the problem is complicating things. People have built houses, started families and depend on the current income to pay for the areas inflated prices. It’s a way of life for many, and most don’t enjoy it very much. Many residents complain of drugs and crime problems. People are moving to Fort McMurray to make quick money and leave, giving the town no sense of community, and a poor quality of life. So if the oil sands did end up closing, maybe it would be for the better.
In conclusion, the current operations in Alberta need to be changed, both the company’s responsible for pollution and processing, and also the way laws are enforced. Streamlining both side of the problem can make the system better, and allocate proper funding to solve and pay for environmental impacts. The industry of oil production will have to decrease dramatically, to make it unprofitable for processing oil sands. Yes there is environmental problem in the area, but global demand for oil, is making the environmental problems come in second, to supplying the demand. It’s more than just trying to close down one site, global dependence of the black gold needs to be solved first. Currently companies are doing nothing bad but supply the world, take the demand away and companies, and the companies will begin slowing production and eventually closing themselves. I think the focus is to narrow on the problem, and a broader view should also be considered part of the main problem.
To see the actual impact of oil sands in Alberta, follow the link under "Related links" to see overhead views of the modified landscapes.
With current needs for oil in the modern world, the Alberta oil sand project is vital for the Canadian economy. Many companies have billions of dollars invested in the mining and processing for the sands. To simply stop production, would be unfair to companies and residents of Fort McMurray. Progress needs to be made in the overall, becoming less oil dependent, before trying to focus in and close specific mines. The oil industry is not a clean program, it can be preventative and enforce environmental standards, but no industry can have a perfect record against accidents.
Current setup can always have room for improvements, even the oil sands. Everyone enjoys telling companies what to do, and request high standards to minimize environmental impacts. Many companies can reach these standards only to be told to do more. How can an oil production company going to keep funding changing standards. There needs to be a more secure, and bottom line approach for enforcing and making environmental laws. This hopefully could make both sides work together and not against each other, reducing the amount of hidden information on both sides.
Processing involving tailing ponds, which can be dangerous to surround water sources. The idea itself is good in theory, keeping the contaminated water out of the rivers and lakes. Problems with seepage and leaching should be addressed and fixed. Large corporations should be responsible for water quality, which has direct link to the processing. Deformities and possible cancer are being formed from contact with the water, and is a serious issue, but why is it only a paper battle of who’s right and wrong on the facts. There is no punishment to enforce negative actions on the environment, just a lot of arguing.
The area of Fort McMurray has one of the largest water treatment plants in Canada, and an air quality rating compared to the worse areas of china. These are all sign that the production of oil from oil sands is impacting the environment on many different levels. Every level of the ecosystem has its own set of limitations, it’s apparent that many of these limitations are coming close to their maximum, and changes need to be made to prevent a ecological disaster. Everything living will and can be effected from too much pollution.
Laws and restrictions do need to be enforced to have an impact. The government should be responsible for overseeing the policing of water and air quality, but also realize if a problem is found, possible losses in income can occur, from the reduced production as a result. Outside sources need to acquire to be affective in monitoring levels of pollution, which have no connections to companies or the government. Without such dramatic action, it will only continue to be a blaming war, on who has done what.
Environmental problems are the main focus, but what would happen to all the residents if the oil sands were to be shut down. The human aspect of the problem is complicating things. People have built houses, started families and depend on the current income to pay for the areas inflated prices. It’s a way of life for many, and most don’t enjoy it very much. Many residents complain of drugs and crime problems. People are moving to Fort McMurray to make quick money and leave, giving the town no sense of community, and a poor quality of life. So if the oil sands did end up closing, maybe it would be for the better.
In conclusion, the current operations in Alberta need to be changed, both the company’s responsible for pollution and processing, and also the way laws are enforced. Streamlining both side of the problem can make the system better, and allocate proper funding to solve and pay for environmental impacts. The industry of oil production will have to decrease dramatically, to make it unprofitable for processing oil sands. Yes there is environmental problem in the area, but global demand for oil, is making the environmental problems come in second, to supplying the demand. It’s more than just trying to close down one site, global dependence of the black gold needs to be solved first. Currently companies are doing nothing bad but supply the world, take the demand away and companies, and the companies will begin slowing production and eventually closing themselves. I think the focus is to narrow on the problem, and a broader view should also be considered part of the main problem.
To see the actual impact of oil sands in Alberta, follow the link under "Related links" to see overhead views of the modified landscapes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
