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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)