I have not had a significant, “special” moment with the non-human world. I respect nature as much as human beings and I recognize humans as one component of nature. I love the morning birds’ chirping, the blue sky, falling leaves and the wind, but I don’t expect amazing things to happen between the human and non-human world. However, I feel warm and fuzzy inside when I see some unexpected human’s respectful love toward animals.
My mother values animals just as much as humans. She truly respects nature as a nature. A few years ago, we adopted a cat as a result my sister’s hunger strike for getting a cat. Since then, as we had expected, mom became the one who took care of everything for the cat. My mom became a total cat-person, and started taking care of every stray cat in the neighborhood. So within two years, we had more cats than people in the apartment. She never let her love for cats stop at the door of our apartment, but also took care of the street cats in our village. Now, she spends 1-2 hours a day feeding stray cats and helps people adopt orphan kitties. At first, she faced some troubles from neighbors who complained that my mom helped increase number of street cats of the village. But it should be okay, because since my mom feeds the cats, they don’t need to rummage through the trash anymore. Also cats don’t breed like rabbits. One of her goals is spaying and neutering cats and helping them get adopted when they are kittens. Some of the doormen of the apartment complexes around town now know my mom very well and they even started helping her feed street cats; sometimes they take orphan kittens in for adoption.
I never thought of her in this way before, but she is a true environmental activist that respects nature as much as humans and recognizes nature exactly the way it is.
The most important thing that we should think about for conserving nature is changing our definitions of the essence of humans and nature. We have traditionally defined and recognized nature as in service of humans’ needs. It seems that even the beauty of nature exists solely for tourism. As long as we keep this attitude toward nature and keep approaching environmental problems like a mechanic, we will eventually lose nature as well as our existence in the nature. We tend to make diagnoses of problems and try to fix the part where we see a problem like mechanics--for example, how preserving species will work if there is no habitat for them. Some species have gone extinct by direct humans’ activity, like hunting, but even more animals are disappearing from indirect humans’ influence, like getting rid of their habitat for our own habitat needs or pollution because we think that land and rivers exist for our own development. However, we should acknowledge that our asymmetric relation to nature has driven us to destroy it.
By now, we have learned that all creatures are inter-related. Other creatures are just as valuable to the earth as we are. We depend on each other and whether or not we fix the problem on one node of chains, we will be affected by the food chain. We might be able to exist longer than many other species, but at some point we will face the inhospitable nature unlike never before. We are not God, who is outside of the food chain and nature, but we exist within nature just like any other creature.
We will be able to fix the root of the environmental problems when we see ourselves as one of many components of nature. I believe that must be the ultimate enlightenment for human beings.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Science of Climate Change
Ever since the first data came out showing that the Earth was going through a warming phase, two sides distinctly formed either in support or against this new scientific information. Although the exact cause of global warming and changes throughout our Earth's various ecosystems was not known, speculation formed that this so called "warming" was due to increased human activity.
It baffles me how people can go against raw science. Data doesn't lie, although it can be misconstrued. Normally, anti-climate change enthusiasts battle the subject matter with rhetoric, making their arguments weak. However, "Friends of Science" back up their ideals with science...to me it's a little ironic. The thing is though, their arguments are strong and their evidence is there. However, as Adrienne said, the jargin used in both websites is not written for the average person who only has basic knowledge on the topic. The Grist website works through the opinions of opposing sides through basic psychological logic. While intellectual and in my opinion correct, this website doesn't show the clear cut facts, but just deposes the arguments that "friends of science" make is a clear cut simple way.
No one wants to be wrong, but I also feel that anti-climate change enthusiasts don't want to admit there is a serious problem because that involves taking responsibility and placing blame on our human race. It is this opposition that causes such a great debate between the two sides. I myself believe in climate change and do find the subject matters of the friends of science website amusing. However, these two websites allow me to understand how much the media can misconstrue our ideas on climate change, and how much personal opinions can be swayed. Science is important in determining why such effects are taking place and why on such a large fast paced scale. It all comes down to how you interpret the scientific data that will determine how we will make sense and evaluate climate change. Unfortunately, science can only explain so much and when an issue like climate change is so large scale, it can be tough for data to be convincing.
It baffles me how people can go against raw science. Data doesn't lie, although it can be misconstrued. Normally, anti-climate change enthusiasts battle the subject matter with rhetoric, making their arguments weak. However, "Friends of Science" back up their ideals with science...to me it's a little ironic. The thing is though, their arguments are strong and their evidence is there. However, as Adrienne said, the jargin used in both websites is not written for the average person who only has basic knowledge on the topic. The Grist website works through the opinions of opposing sides through basic psychological logic. While intellectual and in my opinion correct, this website doesn't show the clear cut facts, but just deposes the arguments that "friends of science" make is a clear cut simple way.
No one wants to be wrong, but I also feel that anti-climate change enthusiasts don't want to admit there is a serious problem because that involves taking responsibility and placing blame on our human race. It is this opposition that causes such a great debate between the two sides. I myself believe in climate change and do find the subject matters of the friends of science website amusing. However, these two websites allow me to understand how much the media can misconstrue our ideas on climate change, and how much personal opinions can be swayed. Science is important in determining why such effects are taking place and why on such a large fast paced scale. It all comes down to how you interpret the scientific data that will determine how we will make sense and evaluate climate change. Unfortunately, science can only explain so much and when an issue like climate change is so large scale, it can be tough for data to be convincing.
Salt. It does the mind good.
First: Happy Halloween!
Second:
Taking things with a grain of salt is important. So, looking at the two websites, Friends of Science and How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, I went in with grains of salt. Both are trying to convince me of something (and nothing is unbiased, so everything is trying to convince me of something) and will use, logically, like any other topic on the planet, the best evidence and research to promote their views on the issues they are discussing. While they may not use extremes to illustrate their points all the time, it certainly isn't their end-goal to make sure I follow the other sides' position over their own.
If everything is biased, then, how do we ever know what to make of any given issue? Well, bias, like Kool-Aid mix, is concentrated. You take a cup of water, you put a whole packet of Kool-Aid powder in it, you get one REALLY NASTY drink that's way too strong. You put more water in, you dilute the concentration of Kool-Aid, creating a better (but not really good tasting, because Kool-Aid isn't really that good) tasting, easier to drink beverage. If bias is Kool-Aid (any bias, not just bias towards one side of an argument), then water, that giver of life, is varied sources of knowledge. The more resources you use to figure out an issue (because an issue itself isn't biased: climate change is not biased. It's a thing to discuss. How climate changed is interpreted is where the contentions come in) the more diluted the bias becomes, the more hydrated and knowledgeable you are. So, take everything with a grain of salt.
Especially in the climate change debate. We have extremes on both ends, stuff in the middle and stuff everywhere else. It's crazy! It's a three ring circus and everyone is vying for your attention. But why? Well, basically, the most widely-accepted science behind climate change (or even just pollution. Environmental degradation. Holes in the ozone. Mass species extinctions. Established stuff people don't really argue about anymore but all relate to climate change.) is saying: OUR HISTORY, PAST AND PRESENT, IS SCREWING EVERYTHING UP. Or: your life is making a mess of things. And your mom's life. And your grandpa's. And your great grandma's. So on and such until, at the very least, the Industrial Revolution. Now, for pretty much the entire world, that's hard to swallow. Our lifestyles and the lifestyles of previous generations have been filled with mistakes and we're now being told we have to fix them or face a very harsh punishment. But here's the other thing: WE CAN'T SEE THE PUNISHMENT! You really can't see climate change on most levels. Oh yes, we can see glaciers melting, migratory plans of animals changing, etc...but you can't see the temperature rising/falling (depending on where you are), or the CO2 messing up the atmosphere. It's like "out of sight, out of mind" and no one likes being told they've created something they can't even see and then being said they have to fix it. Makes people want to question it. And defend it.
And as for which site I think is more convincing, that's hard to say. I am already biased. Also, I do design in my free time so the grist site is just better put together than the FOS one, and for my visual brain that automatically makes it more reliable (kind of terrifying, but hey, visual learner = influenced by pretty things).
Second:
Taking things with a grain of salt is important. So, looking at the two websites, Friends of Science and How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, I went in with grains of salt. Both are trying to convince me of something (and nothing is unbiased, so everything is trying to convince me of something) and will use, logically, like any other topic on the planet, the best evidence and research to promote their views on the issues they are discussing. While they may not use extremes to illustrate their points all the time, it certainly isn't their end-goal to make sure I follow the other sides' position over their own.
If everything is biased, then, how do we ever know what to make of any given issue? Well, bias, like Kool-Aid mix, is concentrated. You take a cup of water, you put a whole packet of Kool-Aid powder in it, you get one REALLY NASTY drink that's way too strong. You put more water in, you dilute the concentration of Kool-Aid, creating a better (but not really good tasting, because Kool-Aid isn't really that good) tasting, easier to drink beverage. If bias is Kool-Aid (any bias, not just bias towards one side of an argument), then water, that giver of life, is varied sources of knowledge. The more resources you use to figure out an issue (because an issue itself isn't biased: climate change is not biased. It's a thing to discuss. How climate changed is interpreted is where the contentions come in) the more diluted the bias becomes, the more hydrated and knowledgeable you are. So, take everything with a grain of salt.
Especially in the climate change debate. We have extremes on both ends, stuff in the middle and stuff everywhere else. It's crazy! It's a three ring circus and everyone is vying for your attention. But why? Well, basically, the most widely-accepted science behind climate change (or even just pollution. Environmental degradation. Holes in the ozone. Mass species extinctions. Established stuff people don't really argue about anymore but all relate to climate change.) is saying: OUR HISTORY, PAST AND PRESENT, IS SCREWING EVERYTHING UP. Or: your life is making a mess of things. And your mom's life. And your grandpa's. And your great grandma's. So on and such until, at the very least, the Industrial Revolution. Now, for pretty much the entire world, that's hard to swallow. Our lifestyles and the lifestyles of previous generations have been filled with mistakes and we're now being told we have to fix them or face a very harsh punishment. But here's the other thing: WE CAN'T SEE THE PUNISHMENT! You really can't see climate change on most levels. Oh yes, we can see glaciers melting, migratory plans of animals changing, etc...but you can't see the temperature rising/falling (depending on where you are), or the CO2 messing up the atmosphere. It's like "out of sight, out of mind" and no one likes being told they've created something they can't even see and then being said they have to fix it. Makes people want to question it. And defend it.
And as for which site I think is more convincing, that's hard to say. I am already biased. Also, I do design in my free time so the grist site is just better put together than the FOS one, and for my visual brain that automatically makes it more reliable (kind of terrifying, but hey, visual learner = influenced by pretty things).
What's wrong with being warmer?
Competition about climate change is a simple question of blame and change. No one wants to be guilty, and no one wants to deal with the implications and necessary changes if climate change is the phenomenon that environmentalists claim. CO2 emissions are something that we as a species have been very good at for our entire existence; it seems incomprehensible that it would become a problem now. The changes would include everything in our everyday lives from travel to food, as well as huge renovation to our government and the global economy. The scale is simply too grand. And, because it’s so impossibly difficult to change, no one wants to take responsibility. Admitting fault at this point is admitting defeat – it would be an admission that our entire system is a failure and that we are slowly killing ourselves. That’s a pretty big mistake to take the fall for.
Both the websites examined for today used very scientific rhetoric, making them slightly incomprehensible to the average reader. It also makes them both sound very well informed though. Either side seems to present clear scientific evidence that they are correct and, without the necessary background knowledge, the reader has to take the interpretation of the data at face value. Sadly, that is one of the things that makes this such a challenging topic. Essentially, one has to choose a side to believe and then run with it because comparing the two websites is like reading a chemistry text book – pretty boring.
Interestingly, I actually find myself more drawn to the climate skeptic webpage “Friends of Science.” The website itself was better designed and more easily navigated. It used a lot of graphics and charts (which made me feel like I was interpreting meaningful data, despite the fact that I couldn’t decipher it). Finally, it was less scary and came off as less accusatory. The climate skeptics “suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control.” That’s a message I can actually feel myself getting behind – I mean seriously, every environmentalist should really acknowledge that we can’t control Mother Nature. Overall, the message was just more comfortable.
The “How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic” website offered scientific data but definitely came off as being on the defensive. The data was presented as argumentative, not simplistic. The message was not about being impartial or interpreting “unbiased” data, it was set up specifically to change people’s minds. I do believe in climate change, but I don’t feel that it was well marketed by this particular website.
Save nature save yourself
The most thrilling engagement that I have had with the non human world would be a few years ago my family went on a boat trip down in South Carolina. The boat took us out into the various waterways around the Charleston area and we saw various aspects of the precious ecosystem there. The coolest part would be when the dolphins in the area were beaching themselves onto the shore. There were a specific type of dolphins that do that the conductor told us but I forgot what species they were. They had pink spots on their stomachs if that helps. This was probably one of the coolest things I ever seen because the dolphins would just jump out from the water and start beaching themselves on the shores. They would kinda gyrate on the beach and then somehow force themselves back to the water. This experience demonstrated that we do not need television or computers to entertain us but that there is fun from nature.
Saving nature is something that everyone must do because our world is a precious balance of numerous ecosystems and human actions are having a huge impact on this balance. If humans make one species go extinct it does not just harm that one species there are species that may rely on that species to feed themselves. There may be plant species that require that the species that is now extinct for pollination. There is only one planet and preserving nature is also about preserving our futures on this world. Saving nature is not about preserving the environment at the expense of economic growth but rather being good stewards of the planet that we have been given. Destroying nature is a short term focus but to be truly responsible inhabitants of the world we must take into considerations what we are doing and how they affect all inhabitants of the planet.
Saving nature is something that everyone must do because our world is a precious balance of numerous ecosystems and human actions are having a huge impact on this balance. If humans make one species go extinct it does not just harm that one species there are species that may rely on that species to feed themselves. There may be plant species that require that the species that is now extinct for pollination. There is only one planet and preserving nature is also about preserving our futures on this world. Saving nature is not about preserving the environment at the expense of economic growth but rather being good stewards of the planet that we have been given. Destroying nature is a short term focus but to be truly responsible inhabitants of the world we must take into considerations what we are doing and how they affect all inhabitants of the planet.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Toxic Political Will
This article is about “the Grand Korean Waterway” which is one of Korean president’s promises. “The grand Korean Waterway” is the biggest construction project ever in Korean history. This project has been a big controversy due to obvious potential environmental damage. Basically what this project does is expand the river’s size and dig it dipper so that big cargo ships can go through.
Some critics say it is not necessary because Korea is a tiny peninsula country. Korea is surrounded by sea and the distance between Seoul and Busan, which is the canal’s planned way, is only about 450km.
Putting aside the fact that the presidents’ family own huge property along the canal way, there is a huge environmental issues over this project. The Han River is a good illustration of how we can destroy nature with political will. The Han River, which used to be a healthy, diverse ecosystem, was totally destroyed after a big construction project to dig it deeper and widen it with a cement river bank.
Even though there have been so many small and big protests against the project it continues; the construction has even accelerated. It seems like the president wants to finish this historically gigantic controversial project within his presidential term.
It shows the worst example of the political will can affect the environment in a bad way, especially when it’s related to certain people’s profit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7202161.stm
Some critics say it is not necessary because Korea is a tiny peninsula country. Korea is surrounded by sea and the distance between Seoul and Busan, which is the canal’s planned way, is only about 450km.
Putting aside the fact that the presidents’ family own huge property along the canal way, there is a huge environmental issues over this project. The Han River is a good illustration of how we can destroy nature with political will. The Han River, which used to be a healthy, diverse ecosystem, was totally destroyed after a big construction project to dig it deeper and widen it with a cement river bank.
Even though there have been so many small and big protests against the project it continues; the construction has even accelerated. It seems like the president wants to finish this historically gigantic controversial project within his presidential term.
It shows the worst example of the political will can affect the environment in a bad way, especially when it’s related to certain people’s profit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7202161.stm
Save the whales
The National Marine Fisheries Service recently announced plans to save the habitat for a species of wales that are currently threatened in the Atlantic Ocean. By preserving the habitat it allows for the whale species to survive and possibly expand their numbers to a sustainable number.
This is refreshing after the past eight years when endangered species were not a focus for the previous administration. The preservation of species is a good thing because it preserves a fragile ecosystem and allows for certain species to recover to certain levels. This may be a small step but it is progress for what needs to be done to protect all the species of the world. Here is a link for you guys to check out.
http://www.enn.com/press_releases/3523
This is refreshing after the past eight years when endangered species were not a focus for the previous administration. The preservation of species is a good thing because it preserves a fragile ecosystem and allows for certain species to recover to certain levels. This may be a small step but it is progress for what needs to be done to protect all the species of the world. Here is a link for you guys to check out.
http://www.enn.com/press_releases/3523
Will wind be the future?
Everyday environmentally driven companies strive to create the technologies that will sustain our future. While ingenuity is present, the funds to back up renewable energy alternatives endeavors such as solar panels, hydro electric dams or win farms are not always there. Luckily strides have started to be made towards sustainable development.
Google and New York Financial have each agreed to invest in a 5 billion dollar transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard. The wind farm will stretch 350 miles and make it easier for electricity to be brought onshore in the New Jersey, Virginia and Delaware regions.
While offshore wind farms are more expensive than coal or oil, it will ultimately lower our nations footprint and hopefully contribute to the end of climate change. The trouble though, like other renewable energy plans is convincing the public and high powered industries to switch from a cheap abundant alternative to a new more technologically advanced resource.
Although it will take time, moving forward to a greener future is possible, especially with high corporate and government backing.
To read more about the proposed offshore wind farm visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?_r=1&ref=earth
Google and New York Financial have each agreed to invest in a 5 billion dollar transmission backbone for future offshore wind farms along the Atlantic Seaboard. The wind farm will stretch 350 miles and make it easier for electricity to be brought onshore in the New Jersey, Virginia and Delaware regions.
While offshore wind farms are more expensive than coal or oil, it will ultimately lower our nations footprint and hopefully contribute to the end of climate change. The trouble though, like other renewable energy plans is convincing the public and high powered industries to switch from a cheap abundant alternative to a new more technologically advanced resource.
Although it will take time, moving forward to a greener future is possible, especially with high corporate and government backing.
To read more about the proposed offshore wind farm visit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/science/earth/12wind.html?_r=1&ref=earth
Zoo-p-a-zee-zoo-za...
In our many, varied discussions of environmental politics, we have yet to mention what originally, as a kid, made me care about the environment: the conservation of animals. On a very visceral level, I care about the environment not only because, we, as humans, must live in it, but because all creatures great and small (amazing TV show, and the books by James Herriot they are based off of were some of my favorite childhood reads) must live in this world too.
SO! With that in mind, let's look in our own backyard for an organization that is doing amazing work in animal conversation, and by necessity, habitat conservation: Smithsonian's National Zoo! The zoo, which if you have never been to before, what have you been DOING these years in DC, is not just a place to house animals. The National Zoo IS HUGE. The number of research institutions, programs and projects they are undertaking is amazing! And it is all for saving animals. By saving animals, which doesn't mean just stopping a species from going extinct, but increasing genetic diversity, preserving habitat, encouraging sustainable practices locally in animals' habitats and globally with people are the world, the zoo works to help not just lions and tigers and bears and fish and birds, but you and me.
The question though, that is brought into questions with zoos is the idea of preservation vs. conservation. Preservation essentially says get rid of human use of certain ecosystems all together, while conservation is saying we need to regulate human use. The zoo falls into the conservation category, realizing that we cannot get rid of humans, we're here to stay, but we can find ways to sustainably develop how we treat animals and their habitats, for the reasons I've already mentioned, but also, to quote from one of my favorite books, Last Chance to See (by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine): "There is one last reason for caring, and I believe no other reason is necessary. It is certainly the reason why so many people have devoted their lives to protecting the likes of rhinos, parakeets, kakapos, and dolphins. And it is simply this: the world would be a poorer, darker, lonelier place without them."
And now, pictures of the SEVEN, COUNT THEM SEVEN, lion cubs born within the last two months at the National Zoo!
(Click to be overwhelmed by adorableness)
Shera's four cubs
and
Naba's three cubs' first exam!
I am in overwhelmed.
SO! With that in mind, let's look in our own backyard for an organization that is doing amazing work in animal conversation, and by necessity, habitat conservation: Smithsonian's National Zoo! The zoo, which if you have never been to before, what have you been DOING these years in DC, is not just a place to house animals. The National Zoo IS HUGE. The number of research institutions, programs and projects they are undertaking is amazing! And it is all for saving animals. By saving animals, which doesn't mean just stopping a species from going extinct, but increasing genetic diversity, preserving habitat, encouraging sustainable practices locally in animals' habitats and globally with people are the world, the zoo works to help not just lions and tigers and bears and fish and birds, but you and me.
The question though, that is brought into questions with zoos is the idea of preservation vs. conservation. Preservation essentially says get rid of human use of certain ecosystems all together, while conservation is saying we need to regulate human use. The zoo falls into the conservation category, realizing that we cannot get rid of humans, we're here to stay, but we can find ways to sustainably develop how we treat animals and their habitats, for the reasons I've already mentioned, but also, to quote from one of my favorite books, Last Chance to See (by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine): "There is one last reason for caring, and I believe no other reason is necessary. It is certainly the reason why so many people have devoted their lives to protecting the likes of rhinos, parakeets, kakapos, and dolphins. And it is simply this: the world would be a poorer, darker, lonelier place without them."
And now, pictures of the SEVEN, COUNT THEM SEVEN, lion cubs born within the last two months at the National Zoo!
(Click to be overwhelmed by adorableness)
Shera's four cubs
and
Naba's three cubs' first exam!
I am in overwhelmed.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
I am an ordinary environmentally conscious college student
I would say that I think like other environmentally conscious college students when I make food choices. Here is a “model” list that any good college students should think about before they buy food: First, it should be organic or proven that the producers treated animals well in its production. Second, local is better.
First of all, I respect all life forms as much as humans--except roaches and mosquitoes. However, I don’t think that I should be a vegetarian. I admit that eating meat is natural. What is unnatural is raising animals inhumanely, like by feeding cows corn, feeding non-vegetarian forage to vegetarian animals, and squeezing them into a cell-like cage. I am more environmentally conscious when I am emotionally involved in an issue. That must be why I am not that passionate about organic vegetables. Second, I support local farms for less fossil fuel consumption and local communities’ development. I hope that eventually local farms replace the big corporations’ farms. I believe these things are the best practical actions for environment with my food purchases.
On the other hand, there are other factors that affect my food choices. First, it shouldn’t be irrationally expensive. I can take few dollars difference as investing in my health and for supporting organic farms. However, I don’t think I will ever easily buy vegetables that are double the price at Whole Foods. Second, it is hard to quit my favorite foods. It seems as if my favorite foods are sacred. When I have Korean food that I miss so much I will not even think for a second what kind of meat it is, or whether it is organic.
Overall, I try to make good food choices and make consider the environment. But I confront some obstacles that are deep-seeded in my mind. I am satisfied with my food choices and its impact on environment and that is all I can do as an individual consumer.
In the past few days, I ate a fancy hamburger at Chef Geoff’s, Korean pork barbeque at home, and a burrito at Chipotle. Among my last three food choices, my fancy hamburger must have had the greatest environmental impact. I am sure that my hamburger patty was made out of “good beef,” but not the one from the factory farm. However, in general our big beef consumption has the greatest impact on environment. First of all, cows take a lot of energy to become beef; this means they need a lot of crops or corn (that cows are not supposed to eat) to grow up and get fat. A huge portion of Amazon’s deforestation is attributed not only to the raising cows, but also to growing beans and crops to feed cows. Also, the methane that cows produce has 25 times stronger impact on global warming than carbon dioxide.
By the way, I don’t like to measure my consumption simply by thinking about environmental impacts without consideration for animal rights; it’s too selfish reason to think just about our (humans’) food.
First of all, I respect all life forms as much as humans--except roaches and mosquitoes. However, I don’t think that I should be a vegetarian. I admit that eating meat is natural. What is unnatural is raising animals inhumanely, like by feeding cows corn, feeding non-vegetarian forage to vegetarian animals, and squeezing them into a cell-like cage. I am more environmentally conscious when I am emotionally involved in an issue. That must be why I am not that passionate about organic vegetables. Second, I support local farms for less fossil fuel consumption and local communities’ development. I hope that eventually local farms replace the big corporations’ farms. I believe these things are the best practical actions for environment with my food purchases.
On the other hand, there are other factors that affect my food choices. First, it shouldn’t be irrationally expensive. I can take few dollars difference as investing in my health and for supporting organic farms. However, I don’t think I will ever easily buy vegetables that are double the price at Whole Foods. Second, it is hard to quit my favorite foods. It seems as if my favorite foods are sacred. When I have Korean food that I miss so much I will not even think for a second what kind of meat it is, or whether it is organic.
Overall, I try to make good food choices and make consider the environment. But I confront some obstacles that are deep-seeded in my mind. I am satisfied with my food choices and its impact on environment and that is all I can do as an individual consumer.
In the past few days, I ate a fancy hamburger at Chef Geoff’s, Korean pork barbeque at home, and a burrito at Chipotle. Among my last three food choices, my fancy hamburger must have had the greatest environmental impact. I am sure that my hamburger patty was made out of “good beef,” but not the one from the factory farm. However, in general our big beef consumption has the greatest impact on environment. First of all, cows take a lot of energy to become beef; this means they need a lot of crops or corn (that cows are not supposed to eat) to grow up and get fat. A huge portion of Amazon’s deforestation is attributed not only to the raising cows, but also to growing beans and crops to feed cows. Also, the methane that cows produce has 25 times stronger impact on global warming than carbon dioxide.
By the way, I don’t like to measure my consumption simply by thinking about environmental impacts without consideration for animal rights; it’s too selfish reason to think just about our (humans’) food.
Food Glorious Food
I personally do not think before I eat simply because since I rely on the school dining room for my meals I personally can not make the choices available. Honestly, I usually just grab the foods that look the best and I am in the mood for. Ideally, I try to cut down my intake of meats because they are bad for the environment since they cost more to make than other food sources. The environmental considerations for me are that I hope that the food being prepared is made in a way that reflects proper environmentally sustainability but I feel individually it is up to the food companies to make sure they are following enviromental standards. I feel indivually if consumers can exert pressure on the food producers but this can take a lot of organizing and willpower which I feel most people do not have the stomach for their food sources.
The past weekend I took the LSATs so I honestly did not eat or drink much this past weekend. I only consumed water because I do not drink caffeine. This decesion was made for health reasons because I feel caffeine is bad for you and messes up your body's natural way of doing things. This also could play a role enviromentally since water would be easier to make than caffeine products. Food wise I eat local foods since I was back home. I eat two Italian hoagies from Wawa with lettuce mayo, salt and pepper. These foods I feel have less of an impact since they are locally made. Lastly, I had a bowl of cereal frosted flakes for breakfast with that potentially have the greatest impact due to all the ways that the cow is maintained along with the methane gas that the cow releases.
The past weekend I took the LSATs so I honestly did not eat or drink much this past weekend. I only consumed water because I do not drink caffeine. This decesion was made for health reasons because I feel caffeine is bad for you and messes up your body's natural way of doing things. This also could play a role enviromentally since water would be easier to make than caffeine products. Food wise I eat local foods since I was back home. I eat two Italian hoagies from Wawa with lettuce mayo, salt and pepper. These foods I feel have less of an impact since they are locally made. Lastly, I had a bowl of cereal frosted flakes for breakfast with that potentially have the greatest impact due to all the ways that the cow is maintained along with the methane gas that the cow releases.
Apple of My Eye
First: I am a foodie. I am a ridiculous epicurean who is living on a college student's budget. I love to cook, this weekend in fact, I had a dessert party where I served: dulce de leche cheesecake, brothers, cookie sandwiches with a nutella-chocolate filling, a fruit dip, bruschetta and cucumber dip (okay those last two aren't desserts but realized too many sweets isn't a good idea). All of that was made by me! I LOVE TO COOK! And not just easy stuff, like pasta, but crazy ridiculous stuff, like homemade dulce de leche for a cheesecake. Yeah, college student with aspirations of something bigger.
So when I shop, I shop with a mindset of a not-so-average college chef in mind. Meaning the frozen food (prepared) aisle holds little interest for me, unless maybe frozen veggies.
Here's how my brain prioritizes when grocery shopping: 1. Menu for the week. I plan out what recipes I want to try/make before I go shopping. Saves me from impulse buys. 2. Price. This is pretty much tied with number one, because I set a budget for myself each week of how much I can spend. At the store, unless I know of a noticeable taste difference between the brand-name and store-band items, I go for the cheaper store-band stuff. 3. Shelf life. I may not buy a head of lettuce if I think, "No, I really won't be making salad for the rest of the week, that'd be a waste." 4. How hungry I am when I shop. I try not to go grocery shopping when I'm hungry, because that's when I make impulse buys. "What? Dinosaur chicken nuggets for only $2? I MUST HAVE THEM!"...Situations like that I try to avoid. Just because I love to cook and in general don't go for a lot of "processed" foods, doesn't mean I don't find them delicious. Realistically, though, it's usually cheaper for me to make my food and have leftovers for the next few days.
Thinking of what I ate over the past few days...it's hard to determine what had the most impact. I'll pick something random, then, because at least I can focus on it. I had some apples from New Zealand this week. ('sup Professor Nicholson) I know that apple farmers in New Zealand actually have an amazing industry that's committed to growing the apples, if not completely organically, in an integrated system. Here's a pretty fun publication on agricultural exports from New Zealand: http://www.hortresearch.co.nz/files/aboutus/factsandfigs/ff2007.pdf.
Anyway, so despite the fact that New Zealand is doing this amazing sustainability program, all these apples to had to come to the US. I've been to New Zealand. It is a FOURTEEN HOUR FLIGHT THERE FROM LA. How long does a cargo ship take? How much fuel is burned in the transportation? And since I had this apple here, in DC, not only does it have to get to the US, it has to get to the other side of the US. So many fossil fuels burnt! Oooooooh no CO2 whoa!
But why do we have apples from New Zealand? The US has got the apple market covered, right? Johnny Appleseed and all that? Well. There's this idea of demand. Even if apples aren't in season (though they are here), people demand apples. So New Zealand, on an opposite seasonal system than us (hey spring!), can provide that, at the cost of the environment. Good times.
The apple was pretty tasty though.
So when I shop, I shop with a mindset of a not-so-average college chef in mind. Meaning the frozen food (prepared) aisle holds little interest for me, unless maybe frozen veggies.
Here's how my brain prioritizes when grocery shopping: 1. Menu for the week. I plan out what recipes I want to try/make before I go shopping. Saves me from impulse buys. 2. Price. This is pretty much tied with number one, because I set a budget for myself each week of how much I can spend. At the store, unless I know of a noticeable taste difference between the brand-name and store-band items, I go for the cheaper store-band stuff. 3. Shelf life. I may not buy a head of lettuce if I think, "No, I really won't be making salad for the rest of the week, that'd be a waste." 4. How hungry I am when I shop. I try not to go grocery shopping when I'm hungry, because that's when I make impulse buys. "What? Dinosaur chicken nuggets for only $2? I MUST HAVE THEM!"...Situations like that I try to avoid. Just because I love to cook and in general don't go for a lot of "processed" foods, doesn't mean I don't find them delicious. Realistically, though, it's usually cheaper for me to make my food and have leftovers for the next few days.
Thinking of what I ate over the past few days...it's hard to determine what had the most impact. I'll pick something random, then, because at least I can focus on it. I had some apples from New Zealand this week. ('sup Professor Nicholson) I know that apple farmers in New Zealand actually have an amazing industry that's committed to growing the apples, if not completely organically, in an integrated system. Here's a pretty fun publication on agricultural exports from New Zealand: http://www.hortresearch.co.nz/files/aboutus/factsandfigs/ff2007.pdf.
Anyway, so despite the fact that New Zealand is doing this amazing sustainability program, all these apples to had to come to the US. I've been to New Zealand. It is a FOURTEEN HOUR FLIGHT THERE FROM LA. How long does a cargo ship take? How much fuel is burned in the transportation? And since I had this apple here, in DC, not only does it have to get to the US, it has to get to the other side of the US. So many fossil fuels burnt! Oooooooh no CO2 whoa!
But why do we have apples from New Zealand? The US has got the apple market covered, right? Johnny Appleseed and all that? Well. There's this idea of demand. Even if apples aren't in season (though they are here), people demand apples. So New Zealand, on an opposite seasonal system than us (hey spring!), can provide that, at the cost of the environment. Good times.
The apple was pretty tasty though.
You are what you eat....gross.
Over the years I have limited my diet, not so much based on the ideal of my environmental impact, but mainly due to food preparation. The media has a large role in this, and the way I look at food has never been the same.
When I was in my freshman year of high school, I saw super size me. Seeing how food was processed, where the food came from, learning the countless number of chemicals put into each meal and seeing the overall quality of the food made me quickly change my diet. I have not had a ounce of fast food since. The same ideal went with certain types of chicken. I saw the documentary Food Inc. That movie changed my life. It was horrifying to see how companies like Purdue and Tyson’s treat the animals. Conditions are horrible, pens are overcrowded and unclean, and there are vast amounts of runoff from animal waste that flows into the rivers and streams. Seeing this caused my to immediately stop me from eating chicken nuggets. The worst part, I had just bought some at the grocery store…that was money wasted. Because of this fact, I eat entirely organic, even though it may be expensive. It is important to me that by fruits and vegetables be pesticide free and that my meat is free range, grass fed.
Even though I mainly base what I eat off of the nutritional and health conditions, I do try and buy local whenever possible. While abroad I was introduced to the amazing culture of farmers markets. I loved how fresh everything was, how feasible it was to obtain and how remarkably inexpensive everything was. So, every Wednesday afternoon my roommates and I would walk to the market and get our fruits and vegetables for the week. Not until looking back to I realize how much this lowered my environmental footprint towards food. Food was grown naturally, decreasing the impact on the environment through runoff pollution. Food also did not have to be transported far unlike the millions of products people consume everyday that must be shipped miles and miles for consumption.
I try to instill these values on my roommates, family and friends and have been somewhat successful. Although everyone sees the importance of eating organic or local, not everyone can give up the processed unhealthy foods they love. The worst part is, they know exactly what they are eating, and they know exactly how the food is processed. However, the marketing and the long-term lifestyle of eating things such as chicken nuggets or McDonalds overpowers the ideals of what is really going into your body, or the industry you are contributing to when buying the product.
When I was in my freshman year of high school, I saw super size me. Seeing how food was processed, where the food came from, learning the countless number of chemicals put into each meal and seeing the overall quality of the food made me quickly change my diet. I have not had a ounce of fast food since. The same ideal went with certain types of chicken. I saw the documentary Food Inc. That movie changed my life. It was horrifying to see how companies like Purdue and Tyson’s treat the animals. Conditions are horrible, pens are overcrowded and unclean, and there are vast amounts of runoff from animal waste that flows into the rivers and streams. Seeing this caused my to immediately stop me from eating chicken nuggets. The worst part, I had just bought some at the grocery store…that was money wasted. Because of this fact, I eat entirely organic, even though it may be expensive. It is important to me that by fruits and vegetables be pesticide free and that my meat is free range, grass fed.
Even though I mainly base what I eat off of the nutritional and health conditions, I do try and buy local whenever possible. While abroad I was introduced to the amazing culture of farmers markets. I loved how fresh everything was, how feasible it was to obtain and how remarkably inexpensive everything was. So, every Wednesday afternoon my roommates and I would walk to the market and get our fruits and vegetables for the week. Not until looking back to I realize how much this lowered my environmental footprint towards food. Food was grown naturally, decreasing the impact on the environment through runoff pollution. Food also did not have to be transported far unlike the millions of products people consume everyday that must be shipped miles and miles for consumption.
I try to instill these values on my roommates, family and friends and have been somewhat successful. Although everyone sees the importance of eating organic or local, not everyone can give up the processed unhealthy foods they love. The worst part is, they know exactly what they are eating, and they know exactly how the food is processed. However, the marketing and the long-term lifestyle of eating things such as chicken nuggets or McDonalds overpowers the ideals of what is really going into your body, or the industry you are contributing to when buying the product.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Too much food on my plate
As a college student, food is one of the great challenges in my life. Is there enough of it? How much does it cost? How long is going to take me to make it? Etc. My freshman year was the first time I started to put real consideration into where my food was coming from though. My mom decided to be a vegetarian my senior year of high school, and as she did all the cooking and grocery shopping I followed along pretty blindly. Then I got to college and decided that I wanted to keep doing it. I had to have a reason though – why did I want to be a vegetarian? I wasn’t a huge fan of PETA, so the whole animal protection thing was out, and I honestly didn’t know many other reasons why people would decide to not eat meat. So I did some research. I ended up writing a paper for my freshman writing class all about what would hypothetically happen if everyone in the world stopped eating meat tomorrow. It was actually all about health and the environment.
I can’t honestly say I’m a very good vegetarian. I can’t justify wasting meat, so when someone puts it in front of me, I eat it. Also, I love traveling – new cultures are not always so conducive to my eating habits. Finally, sometimes, I just really need a burger – I like to think it happens to the best of us. Clearly, I’m conflicted.
But in any case, it’s not just about the meat. I try to buy most of my produce from the farmers markets around AU (the one on campus actually gets all its produce from right around my hometown – so I know just how local it is). I also try to limit myself to fresh fruits and vegetables that are in season. Again, I’m not always so successful at these things. Eating environmentally is not always so cost effective.
Taste and health are also important considerations but for me the primary ones are the cost and the environment; the balance is tricky. I like to think that just being aware of what I’m putting in my body is the key at this point. My decisions reflect my awareness and eventually I’ll get to the point where I can fully commit. I realize it’s the slow track, but sometimes you look down and just realize there’s too much on your plate to begin with.
I think that the most environmentally thing I’ve consumed in the last two days would have to be the coffee that I can’t live without. This is one of those places I tend to make a few too many compromises. Fair trade, sustainably grown, organic coffee is an expensive thing to come by so my solution is to ignore the problem completely and get the cheapest kind. I know it’s flown in from some obscure corner of the world where they pay the farmers nothing. I know they probably slashed and burned an entire rainforest to plant it, and I know that the chemicals and pesticides will probably make the land unusable for generations to come. However, without it I’m hardly awake enough to get out of bed, let alone save the world.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Technology is not upper hand on nature
Technology is a concentrated mean to serve human’s self-interest. Reacting to the environmental problem is also one of the self-interest based activity. The big trend of environmental conscience is not derived from acknowledging the dignity of the nature, but from the threat that we feel from the environmental change.
We commonly believe that human is superior to other species on the earth and technology seems to prove it. Technology provides us the notion that we can do something about the nature and it is better than letting the nature cure itself. We totally underestimate the nature’s ability of self-recovery. That is why it is hard for us to yield to nature to do that. It drives our tendency to think that the technology will fix the environmental problem. It seems to work well to reduce human effect on environment because it fixes the tangible problems. We are likely to find the side-effect later in the future though. We can’t really see the side-effect when we create the solution in the first place.
Take the ozone depletion example. There are two possible solutions to restore the ozone layer; the first one is exposing the chemical material to build up the ozone layer and the second one is banning the causations of ozone layer depletion like CFCs. These solutions look the same; both of them are human decision, but there is a huge difference in terms of a technology. The first solution represents our belief in technology. It is true. We can build up the ozone layer with our promising technology like we make a dam to control the nature. But in trying to preserve the ozone, there might be some side effect of our decision. On the other hand, the second solution is our acknowledgement that nature can heal itself. Nature functions to stay in its original design. If we let nature be as it is, then it would cure itself from the damage by human. Natural recovery does not bring any side-effect. It always goes back to how god initially created.
Technology is the key idea that allows our creative destruction without having to stop our activities. People always see the damages and output of environmental change. The solution may be found if for we do not concentrate on the result of environment change, but rather think about the causes of it. How many people would interpret the hurricanes, floods and rising sea level as god’s message? No. People would rather expect technology to save us. We should have realized by now technology cannot restore the earth back to the way it was.
We commonly believe that human is superior to other species on the earth and technology seems to prove it. Technology provides us the notion that we can do something about the nature and it is better than letting the nature cure itself. We totally underestimate the nature’s ability of self-recovery. That is why it is hard for us to yield to nature to do that. It drives our tendency to think that the technology will fix the environmental problem. It seems to work well to reduce human effect on environment because it fixes the tangible problems. We are likely to find the side-effect later in the future though. We can’t really see the side-effect when we create the solution in the first place.
Take the ozone depletion example. There are two possible solutions to restore the ozone layer; the first one is exposing the chemical material to build up the ozone layer and the second one is banning the causations of ozone layer depletion like CFCs. These solutions look the same; both of them are human decision, but there is a huge difference in terms of a technology. The first solution represents our belief in technology. It is true. We can build up the ozone layer with our promising technology like we make a dam to control the nature. But in trying to preserve the ozone, there might be some side effect of our decision. On the other hand, the second solution is our acknowledgement that nature can heal itself. Nature functions to stay in its original design. If we let nature be as it is, then it would cure itself from the damage by human. Natural recovery does not bring any side-effect. It always goes back to how god initially created.
Technology is the key idea that allows our creative destruction without having to stop our activities. People always see the damages and output of environmental change. The solution may be found if for we do not concentrate on the result of environment change, but rather think about the causes of it. How many people would interpret the hurricanes, floods and rising sea level as god’s message? No. People would rather expect technology to save us. We should have realized by now technology cannot restore the earth back to the way it was.
Aunty Earth
I'm not going to beat around the bush: Technology is going to save us.
And now I am: But not on its own.
Anecdote: My aunt has high cholesterol. She has to take medicine for it. She also has to exercise more and eat a healthier diet. Her husband helps with the diet, making healthy foods and laying off the nasty, fatty, artery-clogging foods himself, so she's not doing it alone. Her sister (my other aunt), goes for 3 mile walks with her every morning. My mom does yoga classes with her once a week. Her doctor has developed a friendship with her, and checks up on her almost every week. It isn't easy for her to change her lifestyle in such a manner, but she's got a whole team of people who love and care for her helping her out, making sure she'll stays healthy, so later on heart disease doesn't become a factor.
Metaphor: The earth is my aunt. Aunt Earth, instead of Mother Earth. Aunt Earth is not going this road alone. She has help from all sides. The technological aspect of her condition, the medicine, is but one small part. An important part, certainly. But not the whole of it.
Looking at technology from an environmental aspect...the idea that technology could save us is simply saying we can develop tech over time to slow down or halt the environmental degradation going on, without sacrificing how we, as consumers, live. Being saved by technology to a certain extent means perpetuating the consumer lifestyle. We don't want to give things up, but if we can simply switch out something without having to sacrifice too much (like switching out light bulbs), then hey, saving the planet isn't so hard.
That's not going to work. And admittedly, not all environmental technology is used for the purpose of pushing forward the "buy buy buy" ideology. Straws that filter water in developing countries are there to save lives...but they're also helping save the environment, in a roundabout way (if you have clean water your less likely to die, if your less likely to die you can concentrate on thriving instead of just surviving, if you can start thriving you can start worrying about the environment, same old theory). Still, technology just replaces practices that are bad, it doesn't reprimand them.
We need to go on a diet and exercise program too. ...That can be taken literally up to a point, but figuratively we need to live with less, purchase with the long-view in mind (i.e. solar panels are expensive right now, but overtime pay for themselves), and work harder for a healthy planet.
And some might say, "Well why don't we just do only diet and exercise and not worry about the technology." That's not going to work either. My aunt isn't going to just get better if she only diets and exercises. That technology is needed to help fix what's already a problem. The dieting and exercising are helping reverse and prevent further complications.
To summarize: You can't just halt, or prevent, or reduce, or reverse, a problem. You have to do all of them. Technology can help fix the things we've already screwed up (SORRY AIR. AND WATER. ...AND OZONE.AND TREES. ...AND PLANTS. ANIMALS. PEOPLE. ...our bad!), but reduced consumption and increased advocacy and action will prevent the situation from slipping back into old, really bad for the planet, habits.
And now I am: But not on its own.
Anecdote: My aunt has high cholesterol. She has to take medicine for it. She also has to exercise more and eat a healthier diet. Her husband helps with the diet, making healthy foods and laying off the nasty, fatty, artery-clogging foods himself, so she's not doing it alone. Her sister (my other aunt), goes for 3 mile walks with her every morning. My mom does yoga classes with her once a week. Her doctor has developed a friendship with her, and checks up on her almost every week. It isn't easy for her to change her lifestyle in such a manner, but she's got a whole team of people who love and care for her helping her out, making sure she'll stays healthy, so later on heart disease doesn't become a factor.
Metaphor: The earth is my aunt. Aunt Earth, instead of Mother Earth. Aunt Earth is not going this road alone. She has help from all sides. The technological aspect of her condition, the medicine, is but one small part. An important part, certainly. But not the whole of it.
Looking at technology from an environmental aspect...the idea that technology could save us is simply saying we can develop tech over time to slow down or halt the environmental degradation going on, without sacrificing how we, as consumers, live. Being saved by technology to a certain extent means perpetuating the consumer lifestyle. We don't want to give things up, but if we can simply switch out something without having to sacrifice too much (like switching out light bulbs), then hey, saving the planet isn't so hard.
That's not going to work. And admittedly, not all environmental technology is used for the purpose of pushing forward the "buy buy buy" ideology. Straws that filter water in developing countries are there to save lives...but they're also helping save the environment, in a roundabout way (if you have clean water your less likely to die, if your less likely to die you can concentrate on thriving instead of just surviving, if you can start thriving you can start worrying about the environment, same old theory). Still, technology just replaces practices that are bad, it doesn't reprimand them.
We need to go on a diet and exercise program too. ...That can be taken literally up to a point, but figuratively we need to live with less, purchase with the long-view in mind (i.e. solar panels are expensive right now, but overtime pay for themselves), and work harder for a healthy planet.
And some might say, "Well why don't we just do only diet and exercise and not worry about the technology." That's not going to work either. My aunt isn't going to just get better if she only diets and exercises. That technology is needed to help fix what's already a problem. The dieting and exercising are helping reverse and prevent further complications.
To summarize: You can't just halt, or prevent, or reduce, or reverse, a problem. You have to do all of them. Technology can help fix the things we've already screwed up (SORRY AIR. AND WATER. ...AND OZONE.AND TREES. ...AND PLANTS. ANIMALS. PEOPLE. ...our bad!), but reduced consumption and increased advocacy and action will prevent the situation from slipping back into old, really bad for the planet, habits.
The Values of Technology
I like my iPod. I like my computer. I love being able to walk into my house, turn on the lights, and take a hot shower after a long day. Technology is a difficult thing to imagine living without – especially depending on how far you go in defining it. For example, a shovel was a pretty hot commodity back in the days of subsistence farming and by the definition we came up with for technology in class – a tool that helps us extend our capabilities – it meets the criteria. Now, I know a lot of environmentalists, but I don’t think that any of them would make the argument that we shouldn’t use shovels because they’re damaging to the environment. Therefore, technology is relative, it can’t all be lumped together as something evil and destructive, or something good and desirable.
Of course, most technology isn’t completely neutral either. Some technologies lack any redeeming qualities, nuclear weapons for example – bad for people, bad for animals, bad for the Earth. That’s like the US claiming to be neutral while it’s shipping guns and tanks over to Europe to destroy the Germans – sure we’re not pulling any triggers, but we’ve obviously picked a side. But then, who gets to define what’s good and what’s bad? Shovels are also used to help build energy sucking sky scrapers, are they bad technology then too? Where does one draw the line for the desirability of technological enhancement?
So here’s my theory: in order for technology to offer any positive advancement, it must be recognized as a tool and not a solution. Technology is a reflection of societal values and desires. If it is not created with this in mind doesn’t catch on, doesn’t develop. In fact, if it doesn’t reflect those core concepts it usually isn’t even dreamed up because there would be no demand and no market for it. Think about it, our technology today reflects a society that is fast paced, information driven, and individualized. Very little of the things we use don’t reflect that.
Unwittingly, by spreading technology with these core values to different cultures, we have also spread the values they were designed around. Africa’s values may not originally have been reflected in an iPod or a BMW but after being exposed to something so new and exciting, it’s hard not want to at least try it. Over time, prolonged exposure to a certain technology will change the way one considers the world and thus change their value system. Consider the definition of fast. Before the widespread availability of cars, riding a bike across town would have been really quick. Now, if it takes more than ten minutes from Tenley to Downtown it’s a travesty. And that’s life, we don’t even think about it.
So here’s the thing, once again, it comes down to changing our core values and thus the things we expect/want out of our technology. We need to jump off of this bandwagon idea that technology just develops and we have no idea where it will end up. It’s true to the extent that human ingenuity is amazing and we can create unbelievable things seemingly without trying. However, we can guide it to some extent by changing the way we see the world. So my answer to whether technology can save us or not is a resounding no! However, I think that technology will be a helpful tool no matter if we continue to think of the world as disposable or if we change our mindsets and consider it the valuable life force that it is.
We Shall Overcome...maybe.
Technology is a touchy subject when it comes to environmental sustainability. Many believe technology is the answer because it solves the short-term problems. For example, fish stocks are running low, so we can apply technology to genetically engineer them or, fresh water basins are starting to decrease at a rapid pace around the world, so why don’t we use technology and enhance desalinization processes. What most members of society don’t realize is while technology may fix the short-term issues involving depleting resources or climate change, the long-term effects of a technological fix may be just as catastrophic.
Here and now the world is in crisis. Polar ice caps are melting, rivers are at all time low levels, the ozone layer is depleting and natural resources are being over-consumed. Lucky for us, technology is here to save the day. In our society and others around the world, we are adept to consuming vast amounts of goods and services. This desire to buy our every want and need is part of our culture and is not something most would give up lightly – this is just a fact we have to accept. Technology allows this consumer culture to continue, while making people feel that they are contributing to saving the environment. Technology then becomes our savior…at least in the short term.
But what happens when the side effects of technology outweigh the positive environmental impact they were supporting? This is a frequent question with stratospheric ozone depletion. Some scientists and environmentalists think that by blasting chemicals to technologically alter or build-up the ozone layer will solve the problem of climate change. If implemented correctly, ignoring the politics of it all, an average citizen could be convinced this is a great idea. Again, technology has provided a fix. However, the long-term effects of stratospheric ozone depletion have yet to be sufficiently discovered, and the idea of who would govern such a system has not yet been conceived. This example supports my main argument, that while technology is a great thought, it is not a solution. Technology does not fix a problem; it only delays the catastrophic effects or makes life easier. In a time when everything must be short, quick, simple and efficient technology will always be our savior but, technology can’t be designed as an end to our means.
Here and now the world is in crisis. Polar ice caps are melting, rivers are at all time low levels, the ozone layer is depleting and natural resources are being over-consumed. Lucky for us, technology is here to save the day. In our society and others around the world, we are adept to consuming vast amounts of goods and services. This desire to buy our every want and need is part of our culture and is not something most would give up lightly – this is just a fact we have to accept. Technology allows this consumer culture to continue, while making people feel that they are contributing to saving the environment. Technology then becomes our savior…at least in the short term.
But what happens when the side effects of technology outweigh the positive environmental impact they were supporting? This is a frequent question with stratospheric ozone depletion. Some scientists and environmentalists think that by blasting chemicals to technologically alter or build-up the ozone layer will solve the problem of climate change. If implemented correctly, ignoring the politics of it all, an average citizen could be convinced this is a great idea. Again, technology has provided a fix. However, the long-term effects of stratospheric ozone depletion have yet to be sufficiently discovered, and the idea of who would govern such a system has not yet been conceived. This example supports my main argument, that while technology is a great thought, it is not a solution. Technology does not fix a problem; it only delays the catastrophic effects or makes life easier. In a time when everything must be short, quick, simple and efficient technology will always be our savior but, technology can’t be designed as an end to our means.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Who needs trees when we artifical ones
Technology has increased so much over the past century at such a remarkable speed that even from decades to decades what technology we posses is unimaginable and our progress has increased greatly. Technology though will not save us from the looming environmental disaster that our current path is leading us towards. Technology has actually lead people to stop thinking that our environment needs saving because technology will replaced what is destroyed. Technology though should not be needed to step in when the earth has a natural way of doing things it seems illogical to use technology when something occurring naturally. Technology can be used in environmental terms by reducing the current impact on the environment through greater efficiency which leads to using less natural resources.
The ozone depletion comes from technology use through our previous economic output which allows the people on our planet to have a good lifestyle. Technology has lead to more developments economically which have greatly impacted the environment because these further technological gains have put a greater strain on the environment. Ozone depletion is a good example of this because as there have been more CO2 in the atmosphere has lead to further damage and has significantly contributed to climate change. Technology being used to fixed the ozone depletion would be ironic since it is the development in technology that has led to the ozone depletion in the first place.
The ozone depletion comes from technology use through our previous economic output which allows the people on our planet to have a good lifestyle. Technology has lead to more developments economically which have greatly impacted the environment because these further technological gains have put a greater strain on the environment. Ozone depletion is a good example of this because as there have been more CO2 in the atmosphere has lead to further damage and has significantly contributed to climate change. Technology being used to fixed the ozone depletion would be ironic since it is the development in technology that has led to the ozone depletion in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)