Meh.

What bothersome things we humans are. We toil and tend the land to make our lives bearable when the very meaning of living escapes us. We create things, unnatural things, to become more entrenched in them instead of actually living. How many people can say that they don't use cell phones? How many people can say that they don't need the internet to get along from day to day? Few, especially in developed countries. And after we're done with a device and want the newest gadget to replace it? Throw it in the trash. That's where most portable devices end up, poisoning the land with heavy metals and other things that take thousands of years to decompose. All of this in order to continue something we consider "happy lives." I honestly am hoping that I'll eventually move out into the woods like Thoreau did at Walden pond. Sure, it'll be tough and I probably won't last that long, but I figure that's better than being enslaved by the things we all "need" in our daily lives. Fabricated necessities that further construe the meaning of life and lead to fabricated debt of money with arbitrary value. This isn't how we were meant to live and if it's a requirement these days, then I'm ashamed to be a part of it.

Communicating Climate Science

Good stuff from Dot Earth and the filmmaker who made Flock of Dodos (about Kansas and the teaching evolution debacle).  http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/climate-communication-and-the-nerd-loop/

Role of the Government

The government's main function should always be to enforce laws, legislate new ones, and arbitrate  conflicts. If you take this to relate directly to environmental problems the government has the same functions. First, enforce environmental laws through sanctions against those who pollute the most, which could most certainly have accumulated over time. This could be through fines or actual punishment that would help provide the government with some actual funds. Second, legislate new environmental laws to mandate wind energy or solar energy, etc. If you phase out our reliance on oil and coal and harnessed renewable energy our international debts could eventually be paid off. And lastly, arbitrate conflicts, within our own country first. We need to make sure "going green" is affordable for everyone.

WATER Center

Our field trip on Friday to the Wichita Area Treatment, Education and Remediation Center raised a plethora of issues that would make excellent topics for research essays and blogs.  Among them:

• Why should a corporation be held financially and morally responsible for cleaning up environmental damage that that same corporation caused in the distant past (when none of the current employees were alive let alone working at the company, and when environmental protection laws were very different)?  Is such a corporation responsible for paying as much as needed, even if it means bankrupting the company? How far in the past does the responsibility extend?
• What should be the role of governments in cleaning up environmental problems?
• Are there ways to do environmental cleanup that are morally unacceptable?
• Are the rules of Superfund cleanups onerous, and should local governements be allowed to sidestep those rules as Wichita has?

In comments on this post, list additional environmental, philosophical, policy and other issues the field trip raised for you.

Shale Gas

Here is the beginning of a very important conversation for the future of energy: New discoveries of LARGE supplies of natural gas in shale around the world.  A final research paper on the transformation of the energy economy in the future would be an excellent choice for someone.

Sunrooms and Misbehaving Children

Yesterday my girlfriend and I bought some tools to start our garden with. It was nothing big, just a trowel, a hose and a hand cultivator. We then went on to explore several estate sales and stumbled upon a home which had a stunning sunroom surrounded by one of the most inviting gardens I have ever seen. This got me thinking about my garden and what it would look like. I found myself thinking of large, overgrown greenhouses from movies and the landscapes painted by the personalities on HGTV. Then I caught myself. I started to wonder first why I thought of these and then why I thought they were appealing. The reasoning was clear on the prior: I have been conditioned by what I've seen. I like it so I'll think about it when creating something similar. The latter, however, is a bit more mysterious. Do we as humans enjoy plentiful surroundings? Yes. Does this preference come from our animal instincts to have a high probability to find food and shelter? I believe this to be true as well, but what of the aesthetic value we place on such emplacements? Why is it pleasurable to sit in that sunroom and soak up the scent of the plants only an arm length away and relax in the shade of the green leaves lit by the high afternoon sun? What makes it so easy to write elegantly about doing so? Is it really human nature to enjoy what the world has surrounded us in and give it value just because it's there or is it something more? Yes, it were those exact surroundings that gave us food and shelter and still provide that to us today, but do we love it just because it supported us this whole time like a mother? The situation we as humanity have gotten ourselves into seems to me like a spoiled child who's grown up and wants his mom to pay for everything. The only kicker is that mommy is running out of funds and is falling apart because of how we as the children take.

The developmental process of studying philosophy

One thing that I find really enjoyable and encouraging about studying philosophy is that it isn't a "closed" process. What I mean is that there isn't a specific trajectory one has to take, and there isn't a specific destination that everyone has to get to in order to study the field in the "right" way.  That's a big difference from, say, chemistry, math or accounting, where you learn the material in a particular order and there is a certain set of concepts and techniques you have to master in order to be qualified in those fields.

Philosophy is more like a developmental process--different people start and end in different places, take different paths, travel at different rates.  And, ideally, keep doing it forever.

All of which is just to say, the process of having your basic ideas jostled and maybe overturned is one of the great things about philosophy, since it affords you the opportunity to CHOOSE what you believe and how you will act.  Most people don't have the benefit of that process.  For most people, beliefs and behaviors are unconscious things that "you just do."  There's a good deal of courage needed to really examine your beliefs and be willing to change them in light of evidence and arguments.  It is really true that old habits die hard.

I remember as an undergraduate having daily (if not hourly) "aha" moments where I was able to see things in a new way.  I'm happy to report that those cognitive shifts still happen for me at least once a week, even in my "old age".  It is fun to see it happening for the students in this class, too.

Some interesting ideas

Here's a 4/2/11 NYT piece about invasive species.

Here's a 4/2/11 piece about a proposed new oil pipeline. 

Biodegradable Plastics from Chicken Feathers

In Science Daily an article was posted explaining how waste chicken feathers could be used to make biodegradable plastics. I thought the idea was fantastic! Chicken feathers are easy to obtain and cheap because of all of the factories growing chickens. Using feathers would also cut down on factory waste sent to the landfill. Yang and his staff at the University of NE Lincoln are trying to develop plastics from renewable resources to replace those derived from petroleum products. He was the first to make chicken-feather-based thermoplastics stable in water while still maintaining strong mechanical properties.

Development/environment ethics

After leaving class today, I thought a lot about this topic. When first discussing it in class, I had the mentality that we don't owe people anything. I have always had this mentality though about almost everything. It is pretty bad when I see those commercials of starving kids on tv and don't really feel sorry for them. However, after give it some serious though I do believe I have somewhat had a "change of heart". I do think that, as humans, it is our responsibility to help if we have the means, and that goes for everything in life. The terminology of "we owe" is what was seriously turning me off to the thought. I think it's important that we are careful of the words we choose to use in such discussion. I do think it wrong to live in unnecessary luxury when others are starving and do not even have the basic needs to survive. The difficult part in helping is knowing how to help. Granted there are several organizations, however, they are not all trustworthy. I personally have a hard time giving to any because I do not know exactly how much of my money is going to the cause. I have always given to just 2 organizations because I have found them in my research to be legit. These places are St. Jude and World Outreach International. I chose these 2 places because, while I may seem (and have been told by several professional personality tests) heartless, I do have a huge heart for children and these 2 organizations goes directly to those children in need.

Responsiblility

I believe the dilemma of having thousands of poor and suffering humans is the responsibility of all the humans on Earth, not just the ones suffering. The extreme gap between "poor" and "rich" is and evident problem. Many of people who have surplus cash spend it for themselves on luxury goods. No one needs three or four T.V.'s, three cars, beer, or name-brand clothing, but many people in our culture see those items as necessities. You would think that the more money you have, the more money you will feel obligated to donate or use towards helping others. Any famous person in pop culture today has nice cars, house(s), pools, and fine accessories, and occasionally I hear of the charities some of them help or donate to. If all of the rich, or financially well off people, gave a significant amount, but still stayed around or above the average comfortable lifestyle income, the world could be changed tremendously. People need to think about what is important in life which is being happy and with each other. I believe there needs to be a drastic change that makes it mandatory for the millionaires of the world to have to give back a certain portion. Without some sort of change Earth's resources will continue to fastly deteriorate as will the health and safety of all humans and animals.

NYT "dotearth" on Environmentalism and Republicanism

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/republicans-for-environmental-protection-endangered-species/

Free (from emissions) Car!

Last year I read part of a book called Free: The Future of A Radical Price by Chris Anderson (an abridged audiobook by the author is available for free online) and heard about Better Place free Electric Vehicles. At the time of the books publication Better Place had actually yet to offer an free cars, but now they have set up shop in Tel Aviv, Copenhagen and Ontario (you have to live in a city where their battery stations exist) and hope soon to open in California, Australia, China and elsewhere around the globe. The battery it uses is a newer safer, non-toxic lithium-ion battery that can drive a car for 100 miles. In the participating cities a driver can drive to a battery station to have it switched out or simply charge at home or at work. This is good for the environment because fossil fuels will not be burned from these drivers and helps utilize off-peak elctricity that might go to waste. I was generally excited to tell you about this car company because not only are the environmental benefits great, but as explained in the book the car and it's battery could actually be (or theoretically would be) free to the consumer. I can find nothing on their www.betterplace.com site that discusses price though Anderson's book claimed they were trying to make the price free (as loaner), only paying for the electricity rates for the battery - and at comprable prices to gasoline, though inflated perhaps 50 cents for what would equate to a miles worth of energy. The book, Free stated that a consumer could outright buy the car, while getting the battery for free, if one would so choose and then receive price deductions on the energy. Perhaps now the company sees it needs to show a healthier profit, or needs funding to establish itself in more markets, chosen somewhat for their higher prices of gasoline, or perhaps they really are offering this deal in their current markets. Currently Better Place is implementing their cars as taxis in San Francisco and San Jose, and this plan should be fully implemented in the next 2 1/2 years.

Today we talked about the impact of religion on the environment. This really struck me since I always thought of religion as somewhat of a observer of sorts now, but looking back to the days where the church was the one and only power in a government I see my error in image. If enough people see it the same way, however, then the public is simply ignorant and the church can do what it may within itself. The same kind of ignorance could give an unsurpassed power to any organization that would be willing to use it. So what does this matter? Imagine if the power of the church was realized. Such a large following could have such a large impact on environmental politics through lobbying, in either direction. Unfortunately, most of the church's followers tend to think that the world is their oyster and it's all meant for humanity to consume. If this were changed to the reciprocal, then any environmental endeavor would be made that much easier, even without lobbying due to the sheer amount of people who follow religions. If the use of their zeal can be harnessed, we'd have a wealth of renewable political energy on tap.

Unethical Treatment of Animals

Animals are living, breathing creatures, completely able to feel pain. The meat industry treats cows, pigs, chickens and other meat with no respect for their lives or well-being. I tried to watch a video clip of how animals were treated on farms and slaughter houses, but it was the worst video I have ever watched and I could not make it through the entire thing. I know the food need is an ever-growing demand with the increasing population, but something has to change. It should be illegal to keep animals in cramped places causing physical and mental illnesses. It should be illegal to make animals, who have as much feeling as the pets in your home, suffer through cruel punishment such as being beaten, chained down, abandoned without food or water for long periods of time. Skinning, burning and killing while fully conscious and terribly scared out of their minds should be outlawed as well. Something has to change and it needs to change fast. Animals have a right to live in open fresh air and walk around and enjoy their life without all of the torment.

Human impact on ocean life

I have chosen the topic of the human impact on ocean life for my research paper. I had been thinking of writing on this topic for quite some time. However, when I saw the recent news about the millions of dead fish that appeared (seemingly over night) in a west coast harbor. I find it very disturbing that things like this are happening. I to take a little bit of comfort in the fact that the city is trying to find ways to use these dead fish rather than just disposing of them in the trash. I read an article today that said officials were allowing local community members to come pick up some of the fish to use as fertalizer in their yards and gardens. Some of the other fish were being transported to an organic composting site. . As the clean up in the California harbor continues, fears are now turning to possible bacteria pollutants in the air and water from decomposing fish. Some areas of the harbor floor are up to three feet deep in dead fish. Low oxygen levels in the water is said to be the cause of this massive kill-off. I can't help but wonder what on earth caused the oxygen levels in the water to drop so rapidly.

Depleted Uranium Shells

My topic for the research paper is on the environmental impact of depleted uranium shells used by militaries around the world, specifically the issue of whether or not to use them at all and possible suitable replacements. This is a major ethical issue since the enemy combatants are not the primary parties damaged by the ill effects of the rounds left after they are inert combatively. The small doses of radioactive particles can get into water supplies much the same way as lead from conventional rounds, but with much worse consequences. Cancer and lesions can ensue, killing local populations and leaving them in medical trouble seeing as how most recent war zones are in countries without world-class medical care. Depleted uranium rounds are dangerous and need to be replaced.

The Environment and its Studies: Environmental News

The Environment and its Studies: Environmental News

Climate change thoughts

I must first apologize for the delay in my post. Things have been quite hectic around my house these days. I decided reading would be a good time killer and distraction. Therefor, my post is going to be about what I read. First off, WOW, how deep can a person get about climate? I have never heard of someone going on and on with one word. I found the writing to be a bit "blah." I do agree with the author's reasons for the disagreements our world has on the subject of climate, and the reasons as to why it is changing. People have many different views on the health of our climate and what we should change to fix it if we should even change anything. It is obvious that our climate is now different than it was in 1800's or even in the early 1990's. However, it is difficult to pin point exactly what changed and what needs to be done to fix it. I look forward to reading the rest of this book and hopefully learning more on this particular subject.

Deforestation in the Amazon

Our growing demand for food is causing huge environmental changes. In order make enough food for the fast-growing population, trees and vegetation must continually be cleared. Brazil, the number one exporter in beef, is willing to clear thousands of trees in the Amazon to meet demands. "An estimated 60-70 per cent of the deforested land in Brazil is used for cattle ranching." Demands in meat not only means using money to clear trees, but also using a lot of money for fuel, exporting, and bringing cattle in. Clearing trees looks bad and removes much needed trees to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. "Carbon dioxide emissions in conjunction with deforestation are currently responsible for ten per cent of all emissions globally." Population is only expected to increase, meaning food production will need to continually increase. At some point soon we will hit a dead end if the world as a whole does not change its methods of creating, eating, and shipping food.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110304091504.htm

From the 1/3/11 NYT

How Species Save Our Lives

Clothes Makers Join to Set ‘Green Score’

Oil Drilling to Resume in the Gulf’s Deep Waters

Green Roofs are Cool

A smart way to grow a garden, save space, conserve energy and help the environment is by having a Green Roof. Green roof's, or rooftop garden's, are those that vegetation is planted on, rather than shingles or tiles. It helps improve the air quality by removing pollutants, therefore making it healthier and safer for humans and animals in the surrounding area. A more noticable factor is that it helps reduce runoff. It also reduces and filters the harmful chemicals, from what would be on a normal hard roof and in rain, from flowing down drains into the soil again. Having a green roof lowers your heating and cooling costs because it acts as an insulator. Although it cost almost $100,000 more dollars to install versus a conventional roof, its pays for itself in the end by saving you around $200,000 in it's lifetime. Overall, having a green roof is a good, artistic, beneficial way to help your home and surrounding environment.

Bullets as Environmental Hazard

I have to admit, I enjoy guns and ammunition. Talking guns with people is one of my favorite things to do and nothing brings a smile to my face quite like a good action movie, but with everyone else in the world who uses a gun--whether it be on the shooting range or on the battlefield--massive amounts of lead have been thrown about and pose a danger to the environment. A standard bullet is composed of a lead slug encased in a thin sheath of copper. The copper protects the bullet from the grooves on the inside of the barrel and allows it to hold shape under the conditions presented when fired. This casing, however, often breaks away and flattens out upon impact, especially if the shell was a hollow point. This leads to the exposure of the lead to the environment in which it is newly situated, whether it is a hillside or a person.
With the popularity of guns among Americans as collectibles and shooting as a hobby, shooting ranges are seeing more traffic than ever. Thousands upon thousands of rounds are fired every day in sport, seen as harmless since the only results are holes in paper targets and puffs of dust from the hillside behind them. What the shooters don't see, though, is that when the stockpile gets wet, it leaches small amounts of lead from the bullets in the ground. A single bullet won't really produce much for volume, but when the entirety of a range is exposed, the runoff becomes significant. Rivers near shooting ranges have reported enhanced lead levels, which can be dangerous to wildlife and people who may depend on the river as a water supply. Aquifers are also at risk and the threat of lead poisoning is one that is gaining more attention daily. Of the first to respond, ammunition manufacturers have begun making rounds with zinc along with lead, decreasing the amount of the latter while creating another potential barrier against leaching by the prior. The shells are more expensive, but the slowing of lead leaching is considerable. This, of course, will most likely stay on the shooting range, leaving former battlefields as a completely different problem to be dealt with.

Our Moral Responsibility

This week I am not going to inform you of a new way to create energy without harming the environment. I am not going to give you any statistics about how our earth is slowly becoming a giant coffin for 6 billion people. Instead, I am going to give us all a little reminder that it is our job to do whatever we can to try and resolve this problem. Not only for ourselves, but for the sake of the generations to come. Until recently, global warming was never on the news, you never heard about the emission of "green house gasses", or how the world was at risk of declining to the point of the next mass extinction. There is a very simple answer for why this hasn't been a problem of the past. Until recently, humans used horses for transportation, we created our crops without harsh pesticides and herbicides. Now, it seems almost everything we do somehow expedites the route to our doom. This is where I will present a challenge to all of us. I think that we should all make it a goal to take this problem on our shoulders and try to do something about it. There are several reasons why we should do this; the first is because we started out with a picture perfect earth to live in. Since then, we have seemingly done everything humanly possible to destroy it. Instead of hoping in our big luxurious Hummers, I think we should crawl into our Prius instead and start saving gas. The burning of gasoline and fossil fuels is the main part of our problem. The burning of these gasses and oils creates carbon dioxide, carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide burns holes in the ozone layer, therefore carbon dioxide is destroying our planet. Unless we don't mind being the cause of the next mass extinction, which will probably be us. Don't get me wrong, my intention was not to make us all feel guilty about how we've been living, because that is in no way what I am trying to do. I just think that we should all stop and think about the generations to come and how they would feel about us doing nothing to try and stop and repair the damages that have already been done. Don't do this for us, do it for the people who it could possibly kill. Do it for you kids.

The news on climate change

Earth unrecognizable by 2050
Interactive global sea level rise map
Unlocking arctic carbon
Court on polar bear status

Here are four links about climate change. The first talks about the problem of the growing population and how much food we need. The second is an interactive map that demonstrates the change in sea levels. Third, is a news article about arctic carbon and what its effects could be. The last is on a court case which happened this week to determine the status of polar bears.

Natural Alternative to Sugar

Stevia, a new found sugar substitute that is much easier on your body and the environment. Natural cane sugar has a very harmful impact on the human body, it can cause several intestinal problems that can cause disease over a long period of time. What may sound strange to you is that cane sugar has a negative impact on the environment. You might be sceptical at that thought, but it makes sense if you think about it for a minute. Cane sugar has been one of the highest demanded crops in this country and around the world for centuries. Sugar of course, must be grown in fields just like any other crop. This takes cultivating, plowing, pestecides, herbecides, and many other chemicals that seep into the ground and have long term negative impacts on our earth.
Stevia, however, is an all natural sugar substitute that has no negative imapact on the environment. It can not yet be found in local stores because it hasn't gone through all the tests that it must, but it should be soon available to the general public.
I would encourage everybody to try Stevia when it becomes available to us for the simple fact that you will be doing the environment and your self a huge favor by switching.

100% Renewable Energy

Part I & Part II
In this two part study that was published in November of 2010, the authors discuss the possibility of achieving 100 percent renewable energy for the whole world. The main point is the combined use of wind, water and solar (WWS) energy, they also mention geothermal. The first part of the study is about the types of technologies that are available, the materials and resources needed and what it would take to transport the energy. In this part one of the major concerns is raised about the lack of certain precious metals. The solution would be increased mining in certain areas. The second part of the study is about the cost, reliability and the policies that are and would need to be in place for this type of system to work. For the most part, the research appears fairly sound and seems like the best option at this point. One of the major concerns is getting everyone on board with this plan. If 100% renewable energy is actually within reach at this point, shouldn't that be one of the main goals?

Baccillus Thuringiensis

While watching a video entitled Food for Thought (available at Ablah Library), I first heard about the Baccillus Thuringiensis soil-dwelling bacterium which as well is found naturally in the guts of some moth and butterfly caterpillars as well as on the dark surface of some plants. Spores and crystalline insecticidal proteins (activated in the digestive tract by the insect who consumes it - to adverse and death of the pest insect) derived of the bacteria have been used to control pests since the 1920s. Now they are used as specific insecticides Dipel and Thuricide. This Bt bacterium pest control is thought to be (somewhat) environmentally friendly because it generally only kills pests and has (until recently, and without consenses) not been shown to cause damage to humans, wildlife and other, beneficial insects. To some degree even organic farmers have used Bt or Bt derived pesticide because of their being thought of as environmentally friendly. However, since the mid 1990s the Bt generated crystalline toxin has been engineered with actual crops like potatoes, corn and cotton (approved in the US by the EPA). These crops being grown throughout the world were the first pesticide producing engieneered crops - their DNA makeup contains the toxin in every comprising cell. For the first ten or so years ererything has seemed fine and good with these new plant creations raising the yield and keeping away pests - while reducing the environmental impacts of using other pesticides. Recently, however resistant pest-insects have prevailed in some of the places growing these crops and as well deathly effects have been shown to occur for insects closely related to the target pests. Moreover, some studies suggest that rats can develop liver problems from ingesting Bt and mice can have lowered fertility. It has been generally thought that Bt does not affect vertibrates or creatures that do not have certain receptors in the epithelial cells of their gut. Controversy has ensued however due to a Nature article that supposed this Engineered corn had introgressed into the origins of corns grown in Mexico. The article was retractred but other possible negative consequences such as killing monarch butterflies and contributing to the Colony Collapse Disorder of American bee hives

What habitats are worth saving?

The Serengeti World Heritage site is in grave danger as the Tanzanian Government moves forward with highway construction. Even though statements have been made that a road to the south would not help transportation problems of those North of the park and that it would severly damage the ecosystems, plans still remained for construction. The northern parts of the Serengeti are in fact the only year-round water source for wildabeest and zebras.
In the northern part of the globe polar bears are facing mass destruction. Their habitats are being destroyed because pollutants are being dumped into the water, polar ice is fastly dissappearing because of climate change, and oil and natural gas have been discovered. Scientists expect the decline of polar bears to continue and by 2050 the population will be about 70 percent less than it is today, facing high extinction.
Orangutans, "the person of the forest," which once thrived in Southeast Asia are dying at an alarming rate. Their forest homes have disappeared 80 percent in the last twenty yearts. The logging industry is literally killing orangutans and many other species that live in the trees.
Animals are certainly the first thing many people think about saving in an environmental setting, but what about the plants? When constructing highways and buildings we use miles of precious land. When we tear down forests we are destroying thousands of plant species and making the world less healthy for all animals and humans.

Eating Local

I apologise for my late post. I have been having issues trying to blog all afternoon. Everytime I tried to blog it either would not let me or kicked me out! How frustrating! Anyhow, I was going to blog on the aticle in New York Times that Dr. V wanted me to look up. However, I was not able to find it. I am pretty bad at finding things on the internet. I did find a few other article related to the idea that local grown food may not be as great as people make it out to be. Most all of them discussed the fact that some foods that are imported are actually safer for the envirnment than the locally grown variety of the same food. Lets use apple for example. There are many different varieties of apples we can all choose from. But certain types of apples release more greenhouse gases than others during growth. Therefor, it would be in the best interest of the environment to import the apples that release fewer greenhouse gases than to grow local apples that release subsantially more gases.

Dead Zones

Info on Dead Zones
Here is a link to a site which has collected information about dead zones all over the world. It is discouraging to see how many dead zones there are, even just around the US.

Wind Energy in 2030?

As most of us probably know, wind energy has been a growing idea here in the United States for quite some time now. However, progress on this power source has been quite minimal on the large scale compared to countries such as Japan and China. There is hope for the U.S. wind energy supply though, current advancements in research and production of wind turbines have given Americans new hope. The American government has provided wind plants with enough money to take wind energy research and hopefully double the amount of wind energy that we have been producing within the next 5 years. If all of this works out, it is possible that by the year 2030, more than 20% of America's energy will be provided by wind farms across the country.
I think this is excellent news and so do American officials. So lets all cross our fingers and hope that America, and the world are on a more energy efficient path in the near future.

bioengineered life (food) and Supreme Ct ruling on patenting such life

In 1980 a gentleman working for General Electric developed/created a bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil he thought could be used to clean up oil spills. And so he applied for a patent, but was denied on the basis that living things were not patentable. After a few legal proceeding the case went to the Supreme Court and it was decided on June 16 1980 that he could in fact patent his 'creation'. The court reasoned (in 5/4 ruling) that Congress had intended "anything under the sun made by man" to be patentable, and that the scientist's claim was to a "non-naturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter - a product of human ingenuity". Multinational seed company Monsanto (for one) has taken this concept and ran with it. They have created many bioengineered plant seeds crossed with other organisms they would never be crossed in natural life with the aims of helping farmers produce more output and retard against pests. Monsanto is the worlds largest seller of seeds and has all but (if not) cornered the market in corn and soy plants that farmers buy and plant. In order for a farmer to buy these seeds he has to sign legal agreements to not save his seeds (hence buying again the next year) and sometimes to as well use special pesticides designed by Monsanto. Also par tof the contract the farm can be inspected at any time to check for breach of contract. A number of lawsuits have ensued with even non-Monsanto affiliated farmers being sued for evidently not digging out crops that have grown on their land from seeds blowing over property lines. It has been the case that these farmers have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and eventually out of court settlements. I look forward to the upcoming release of a book by John Park called The Last Farmer : How One Man Took on Monsanto for the Future of Food, for a closer look.

Discovery Project Earth

The Environment and its Studies: Discovery Project Earth: "Here is something that every person should spend time looking at in order to fully understand climate change and the use of geoengineering to fix it..."

The Ecologist's Perspective

The guest lecture today on environmental ethics from an ecologist's view is another example of how non-philosophers deal with ethical problems every day. The best take away message is that learning environmental ethics, and philosophy in general, should be required for all students. Some professions do not face many ethical dilemmas but for the most part a background knowledge of ethics would certainly help people think outside the box when faced with issues.

Below are links to the article mentioned in the presentation, the Ecological Society of America and an interactive map to look at critical habitats:
Callicott, J.B. (1990). Whither conservation ethics?. Conservation Biology, 4(1), 15-20.
The Ecological Society of America
FWS Critical Habitat Map

Buy Organic

Everyone knows they should eat more fruits and vegetables, and most people hear they should eat organic food. Buying organic food is better for the environment and your health. It may cost a few more dollars than boxed production line food, but you save money in the long run on you health bill. Less pesticides, chemicals and preservatives are used on the food and fewer hands and machinery parts come in contact with the food so it has more nutritional value. If eating organic meat, you are eating an animal that has been fed properly and not injected with chemicals for faster production. Besides feeling better about yourself for eating organic food it also seems to taste better than non organic meat, eggs, vegetables and fruits. Remember: buy in season and buy organic!

Enviro news today

The President at Florida State University, Eric Barron, is also a climate scientist.  Here's a podcast he recorded for The Chronical for Higher Education.

MIT created an energy-use reduction program last year that has exceeded its targets.

And, much less good for the environment, Wichita's own Koch brothers.

Consumerism

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about consumerism and the possible impacting it is and will have one our environment. This word can often go hand in hand with materialism. The human population is no longer content with purchasing or cultivating just enough for what for what it is needed or necessary for sustainment. There has been a growing trend of us wanting much more than what we need. It seems that we have unlimited wants. For example, there was once a time when families had just enough space in their house for day to day living. However, now everyone seems to want the biggest and best house. This means that more natural resources and space has to be used to manufacture these bigger homes. Another example of consumerism can be seen in our food consumption. We are, by far, a large group of over-eaters. We consume food products in much great quantities than what we really need to sustain us or keep us healthy. Again, this is causing an over-use of resources such as animals and plants. This high demand for more and more things (and wasting most of them) is causing a slow down in the regrowth of vital grains, nutrients, and meats.

Some good reading

Today's DotEarth blog in the NY Times described a row between two statisticians, and the way that controversies at the edges of science progress don't actually cast the basic science in doubt but still get more attention than they deserve in the popular press.  Plus they are used by "doubters" to spread the idea that the science is not settled.  The blog mentioned two pieces worth looking at: "More Knowledge, Less Certainty," and "Beyond Climate Change: Reframing the dialogue over environmental issues."

Unexpected Environmental Impacts

Comment on this post to leave your description of the "unexpected environmental impact" you were going to discuss in class today.  Sorry again that my flight was delayed and I was unable to make it to class!

Artificially Natural

A question was raised to me by my father after speaking about our human endeavors of space colonization and travel. If nature is everything natural and everything created by man is artificial, then any tree planted or animal raised is artificial. So logic dictates. In that case, what of terraforming? Say that a humanity comes to possess a power able to transform an entire planet into a lush, green paradise, such as the Genesis device created in the movie Star Trek II. We discussed in class the value of nature and whether or not it is inherently valuable or only seemingly so due to human opinion. If it is the latter, terraforming would be seen as a good thing, especially if it made the planet more hospitable to supporting human life; however, if the prior is true, then the alterations, whether they be to a barren planet or otherwise, would be seen as destroying the natural setting. So the destruction by creation is therefore artificial and since artificiality is not nature and nature holds intrinsic value, the false nature must not. Is this true? What of seeding a planet to grow on its own with time? Would the first step nullify the value of all that which comes forth from the initial? Perhaps to humanity, but what of the creatures who come to value that artificial nature as we value our own? Imagine now that the nature which we deem valuable is in fact created by a group of beings capable of doing such planet seeding. Does that mean that all which we find beauty and loveliness in our natural world is really a lie? Something fabricated by intelligent hands to become something mimicking the creations of the universe's original? Perhaps. Perhaps we simply are all artificial in a means. We are all a product of human reproduction which was only made possible by our race's overall survival which was done through our own intervention against extinction. In our quest for survival, are we not in fact relying on alterations done by our own or forefathers' hands? Every vine cut to clear a path, every seed planted, and every stone turned can be deemed artificially changed. In order to survive, we must alter. We are then a product of our alterations and must then be artificial.

Ethics of Meat

The Environment and its Studies: Meat and the Environment

One topic that is rarely brought up when discussing environmental ethics is that of meat. There are many different ethical dilemmas surrounding meat ranging from killing animals for food to the ethics of how you raise animals for food. A study suggests that we tax meat in order to encourage people to buy and eat less meat. This raises a few concerns over the fact that the government would be telling people what to eat in a way. Is it more ethical to tell people what they have to eat or to help the save the planet? Can we even compare the two results at all?

The next ethical problem is about growing meat in test tubes. At first glance, test tube meat would not only solve the ethical problems of killing animals but it would also help the environment by eliminating one of the leading greenhouse gas producers. Test tube meat, is in a since vegan meat because no animals were hurt in the making of it. Yet is the ethical problem only as ethereal as killing animals or is it the fact that we are just finding an alternative to an already destructive mindset. We raise animals for the sole purpose of food and this would be the same thing but on a faster and easier process. Can you consider test tube grown meat alive at all? Or is it just processed food? Can it solve the future global food crisis or is it creating even more problems by allowing for an increase in population?

Foundations of Environmental Thought

Recent public polls indicate that we aren't the only ones who are concerned about the environment and how it is being treated. 50 percent of the surveyed Americans show a concern for water pollution, while 75 percent of those surveyed show concern for things such as; acid rain, nuclear waste, and of course global warming. Concern for the environment hasn't always been this evident. So what has caused such an uproar amongst American people in the recent past? It's the politicians says Steiguer, author of Foundations of Environmental Thought. We are all guilty of gluing ourselves to the television during times of election and economic turmoil, and the environment has recently become a major topic of discussion amongst our politicians. This raised public awareness about the environment, in my opinion, is a great thing. The more the public knows, the more that environmental issues will be looked at, and hopefully fixed.

fantastic book, intro Enviro. Thought

The chapters from de Steugger's Origins of Modern Enviromental Thought have been my favorites so far in our Environmental Philosphy class. The book serves I think the best possible introduction to the environmental ideas and movement as 'beginnings' within books and papers by the 'great' thinkers who put to paper thoughts that must be considered in our modern society with the continuation of our human lives and the health of our planet in mind. That some major political acts are included goes of course further to show how much progress has been made (even if some are not as far-reaching or have been stripped in their scope in the semi-recent years). I enjoyed the brief talks about St. Francis of Assissi and also some of the older philosophers who wrote about overpopulation and recognize how their thoughts cause today's and yeasterday's thinkers to take direction. That Emerson and Thoreau have consistently encouraged the works of other environmentalist is very heartening, Thoreau even being often voted as the most influential of environmentalists I find neat - leave it to a subject as holistic as environmental philosophy to give a poet mass credit. I look forward to reading the chapters that were not covered in the assignment and will use this book as a starting point for my initial extracurricular readings. Ive already ordered Silent Spring and most look forward to reading Naess' literature on the Deep Ecology and Roderick Nash's Wilderness and the American Mind. Im sure I will be propelled by these writings to learn more and I anticipate learning about the more international personalities like Schweitzer and the framers of the Kyoto Protocol.

"Spaceship Earth"

The world around us is full of vital natural resources for plant, human and animal survival. Without plentiful energy resources for every individual the consequences would literally turn deadly fast. Kenneth Boulding believed that the Earth is similar to a spaceship in that the resources are limited and will eventually run out. He referred to earlier in history as the "cowboy economy," which was a time where humans used resources as if their was an endless, limitless supply of natural goods.
Throughout the years people began to realize more and more that we need to conserve our resources especially with constantly rising number of human inhabitants on Earth. In fact, today's Earth carrying capacity is nearly, if not on the brink of being full. Earth cannot expand to encompass more life, air cannot be fixed from hundreds of decades of harmful toxins, and extinct plants and animals can never be replaced, but people can do their part today by conserving natural resources and disposing of wastes in more environmentally safe ways. Environmentally safe practices can continue to take place even with the advancing of technology. Instead of using harmful methods of powering new electronics, homes, and buildings we can use the constant energy from the sun, which makes.
Boulding considered ways to improve lively hood and natural resources. Kenneth's essay was primarily over the topic entropy in the forms of energy, matter and information. Using the second law of thermodynamics Mr. Boulding realized that entropy "places a absolute limit on the viability of civilization." Everyone needs to work together and not use too many resources for a spaceship to stay intact. People must constantly be making repairs and better the ship/environment for it to sustain the old, new, and incoming life forms.

Foundations of Environmental Thought

While reading the excerpt from Foundations of Environmental Thought, the ideas of John Stuart Mill peaked my interest. His Utopian way of thinking is quite clear. In summary, he believed that it is the selfishness of human kind that is destroying the environment. He thought that man needed to get back to a more simple way of life, and stop trying to be better and get more than their neighbor. While these ideals do make some sense, it is not quite practical. The whole idea of a Utopian society can never be. We are, after all, only human. Man will always be wanting more no matter how much one may have. The problem is that we have unlimited wants with limited resources. This is where we find ourselves in trouble with the environment. Rather than man being content with what he currently has, whether it be land, wealth, or food, he is never satisfied. Even though he may have more than he needs to sustain life, he still will trample and destroy anything in his path to get more of what he wants. It is true that there is plenty of resources on this earth to obliterate all world hunger, however, the selfishness of man kind will always prevent this from happening. Anther theory of Mill's was that human population can only reach a certain number before we start to out use our natural resources. It is very easy to see and understand how this is true. The environment can only preserve and sustain its' natural resources at a certain rate. The greater the human population, the more resources will be in demand. This also cuts down on the time that the environment is able to regrow more resources. Unfortunately, there is just no practical way to control human population without getting into the obvious ethical issues.

an unintended environmental impact

I had heard about this years ago and there is a lot of information about it that can be read on google scholar. Today (and in recent years) there have become more and more prescription drugs and reasons to be prescribed medicines; and many people in America take multiple prescription drugs. Speaking of a couple of them, some have detrimental effect on freshwater fish and amphibians. Many prescription drugs pass through the human body unchanged having not been fully absorbed in the body. The drugs are then often found, and in somewhat alarming amounts in freshwater habitats after going through wastewaster facilities. Thus many aquatic creatures are subject to inadvertantly taking drugs like ethinylestradiol, the active ingredient in birth control pills. This and other hormones that we humans take cause such problems in fish as sex reversal , hermaphradism and other hormone problems. Prozac, which in 2005 was taken by 54 million people in the US alone shows up in our ponds, streams, etc. as well and studies have shown that Prozac not only stunts the growth and causes various major damage to tadpoles, but even to sometimes kills them. Studies also show that it negatively effects the reproduction processes of mussels and clams. Pharmaceuticals are not currently regarded or regulated as pollutants but thought has gone into ideas to keep them out of our freshwaters. The main idea is to develop and build better filtration systems for our wastewaters, but unfortunately these new plants appartently would cost around $100 million each. Of course pesticides are also found in our freshwater systems, and even the disinfectants used in soap are showing up. That for many American communities this fresh water is also imbibed publicly as what becomes tap water, points this as having a definate potential unfortunate impact on us personally.

GAIA: Lovelock

Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis was something that I had never heard anything about before in my life. His theory is one that I strongly agree with. He states that all things earthly are somehow connected within eachother and therfore are alive. He aslo states that anything we do that harms the environment, harms the earth because it is a living being, in a sense just like we are. I've never thought of myself as an environmentalist or anything of that nature, but when I look deeper at what the true meaning of an environmentalist is, the more I think that the definition defines me in many ways.
The Gaia hypothesis is more than just an environmentalist's opinion, it is truly how I belive that all human members of this earth should view the world.

Gaia

     James Lovelock, an avid environmentalist, had a very unique hypothesis that can help people understand the importance of working with the environment. His theory is that the Earth, in a sense, is a single organism in which all the Earth's physical components are directly linked to the complex systems. Basically, if people are changing the regular systems we are killing the Earth, and ourselves. Despite the fact that it is hard to think of the Earth as an organism, the point that people are just a part of what makes Earth go on and as we intrude on other parts of the organism, we destroy everything.
     The Gaia hypothesis is the answer to what the human interaction with the Earth is. The less we do to help the environment, the more we ruin other parts.

Lately I've been reading Plato's Republic for another philosophy class and I've wondered, what does it mean to actually contribute to a conversation? If you think about it, all the words, sentences, and ideas that we as people convey every single day between one another are sure to have been used before. Sure, some new ideas might come around once in a while, but every day conversations are steadily recycled. With that said, the same can be said for our endeavors in things such as environmental conservation. Everyone is saying the same things that people said before them. A new idea with new jargon may come up, but the estimated results are the same ones that people with concerns talked about years ago. It's as the old adage goes, "there are no new ideas." So what makes an idea what it is? Should only good ideas count? What constitutes an idea worthy of acknowledgment? In my opinion, the mainstream audience will accept an idea if they are comfortable with it and comfort comes from familiarity. If something resembles something that has been done before, but has been tweaked ever so slightly, then it will be accepted so long as it's not too radical of a tweak. I think this is due to the mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," keeping the methodology of those who are in charge on a straight course, however slow it may be. Unfortunately, they pay little attention to the fact that sudden change is surrounding them and that sudden change is needed in order to remedy the situation.

Human Relationship with the Environment

For any type of life to be successful on Earth, there needs to first be a delicate human environment relationship. Since I believe humans are a part of nature, humans should treat all of the other aspects of nature in the environment with respect. All parts of Earths natural living systems need to work harmoniously together to support each other. Plant and animal life provides humans with glorious scenery, food, water, a cleaner atmosphere, and many other things.
Humans need to do there part in helping the Earth natural cycle too. Since most plants and animals could exist very well without human interaction, humans need to show their environments the respect they deserve since we depend on them so much. People across the globe have destroyed habitats to build upon for our personal needs. It should be a law that those who take from mother nature must take sparely and give back by planting trees, setting aside more land for wildlife and vegetation, or by doing some other noble environmental reconstructive deed. I believe our Earth does not work as harmoniously as it has in the past because of the reason that humans keep taking and plants and animals have to adapt or die.

Human and the environment

The relationship between human interaction and the environment is a close and personal one. We interact with the environment everyday, and, with each of of those, the environment is somehow affected whether positively or negatively. As a simple example of this cause and affect phenomena, one can either ride their bike to work or school or one can drive their car to work or school. Obviously, the bike is a positive influence on the environment while the other is a negative influence. We can also see a relationship in the way humans treat the earths resources. Many people see conservation efforts from an economic standpoint. While, this view is not necessarily incorrect, it is not allowing for the bigger picture of issues. Our efforts to conserve our natural resources is a direct relationship with the environment. We can not have one without the other. There is also a direct relationship between how educated a person is on environmental issues. Many people who have not had much education on the issue, like myself, do not really see how human interaction greatly affects the environment. They are less likely to be as environmental conscious in the everyday lives. While others who have been given a wide array of information on the subject tend to be more aware of their daily activities and the impact they are having on the environment. It is obvious that human interaction and the environment are dependent and directly affected by the other.

Chris's first post

[Chris had a technical issue, so I've transcribed his first post here. --Dr. V.]

In the reading, Baker described the things that make up philosophy.  From metaphysics to axiology, everything was generally outlined.  With that said, Baker went further to describe what makes up philosophy: the structure of arguments and proofs to support such.  This is what I found most interesting since I have heard the same things said in the general public speaking classes that most everyone is required to take. Surprisingly enough to me, it seems that philosophy has an enormous effect in our society, though some may see it as something of an archaic art.  I took this realization and gave it some thought.  Whenever I personally hear the word "philosophy," my mind immediately goes to a place filled with scrolls, marble pillars and dead Greeks.  I can only assume that many people are the same in this affliation, leading to philosophy's undeserved dubbing as a useless art.

I think the reason so many people have trouble with the idea of philosophical thought as a means of progress is due to the ambiguity that it is based in since the definition of philosophy itself is a philosophical debate.  I find that living and thinking in grey areas is  far more difficult that doing so in terms of black and white.  When decisions have to be made with only defined outcomes the answers come more easily than those made in a clouded situation. For exmaple, it would be easier to make the moral decision to take the life of someone deemed evil who has no record of doing any good deed than to do so for a person who has been known to do both good and evil.  At what point does the good outweigh the bad and vice versa? That decision is difficult to make and many people are not partial to difficulty.

HNRS Environmental Philosophy

When I first decided to sign up for this class, it was because I wanted to find an honors course that I could have to put on my resume. After just the first two class periods however, I can see that this class is going to be much more than just honors credit hours. The environment is nothing that I have ever really paid that much attention to in the past, but it is something that we should all pay close attention to. I am very excited about this semester, but especially about this particular class, I can only imagine what it has to offer me. Coming from a very agricultural based family in Western Kansas, I am very aware of how important the land is to families like mine, and families all over the world. Without clean air and soil, there wouldn't be any way to produce quality crops, without quality crops, we wouldn't be able to feed livestock or several other vital aspects that we depend on every day. This being said, I am now far more excited to learn about the environment, and philosophy than I ever would have expected. I only hope that the rest of this semester goes as great as the first few weeks have already been.

I love nearly everything about Mother Nature and I believe the world's population should strive to keep its natural resources. To me, wind energy is a brilliant form of renewable energy that many states across the Midwest take advantage of, including Kansas. By using free, non-polluting energy in Kansas we are creating jobs and not harming the environment. Although there are many benefits to wind energy, there are some negative concerns as well. Many people view wind turbines as an eye sore lain across the pretty prairie land; this is actually a big concern for people living near a wind turbine farm because once they are put in place they are basically large, permanent statues. However, I personally live near the largest wind farm in Kansas and I think wind turbines are a beautiful reminder that everyone should do their part to keep our natural resources, plants, and animals alive and safe. Another factor in turbine construction is the cost of transportation, building and maintaining. Once again though, I believe the costs are worth the long term benefits. Wind turbines have created jobs for people in the down fall of the economy. Also, by using wind turbines we are saving the Earth, ozone, humans, and animals from many pollutants that other energy sources would give out. Hopefully more ideas of non-polluting energy keep surfacing!
http://videos.kansascity.com/vmix_hosted_apps/p/media?id=3563690

The first article by Baker on the nature of philosophy and philosophising was compelling and very refreshing as I had not much recollection of the aspects and systemic processes of philosophical arguments and debating. The accompanying article by Mann was also interesting though I will have to reread it (both actually). Initially, I did not appreciate what the author had to say because while I was reading I thought he seemed, that he was rather to be making little sense in providing an argument, or discourse on actual modern philosophical thought - at least as so affected in contemporary academia. It was however nice to look at the various branches or areas of philosophy and was interesting to see a map of the philosophical 'science', further as the article progressed to be offered thoughts on how he might draw a map - and inspired me to think how I might draw a map of the fields of philosophy - sadlly it seems the academic map leaves out notably existentialism and philosophy of literature and culture, though I think it still exists in our university, though subtley not-often spoken and poorly represented as specific classes and studies.
I took note in Baker's article when mock debating the positive impact studying philosophy can have on anyone and everyone in our society. She essentially states that many people have to utilize clear and critical thinking for different roles that people live: being a responsible citizen, a good friend or super parent...this list goes on. I am glad to be in this class as it strives to tackle probably the most urgent problem we earthers face today, the world's issues of sustaining or reclaiming activism for a healthy environment....I think, in fact that when much of field or applied philosophy began, it could (now) be called Environmental Philosophy.

Reflection

My impression of this course so far is one of slight apathy combined with peaking interest. I must admit that I have never really been interested in environmental issues. However, I am coming into this class with an open mind and a willingness to be challenged. As far as a topic that I am most interested in with the environment, is quite difficult for me to say. As previously stated, I have never been one to pay much attention to environmental issues other than the "duh" factors like cutting down forests and littering. However, I do look forward to delving deeper into the bigger issues. I have recently learned that air quality is a serious problem in some cities. My mother has recently had to move back to Kansas from Phoenix, Arizona due to the terribly polluted air there. Of course, air quality is a big deal but I never really thought much of it until it hit home on a personal level. It is becoming quite clear that environmental issues are a huge problem. Not only does it affect the quality of human and animal life, it also carries with it a financial strain on those that have to handle the "clean up." On the other hand, with a bit of knowledge and a little know-how, we could see big changes on our earths environment.

Tough Math on CO2

The New York Times "Dot Earth" environment blog is a useful place to find information and ideas about the environment.  Today's post, http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/tough-climate-math-in-the-face-of-co2-and-energy-forecasts/, talks about oil company forecasts for future energy demand and the way the market will be structured.  Based on their estimates of current and projected energy usage and environmental policy, they predict a continued high increase in the amount of carbon dioxide humans will be putting into the atmosphere for a long time to come.  The question is, what can we do in the face of this reality?  Can we find technologies that will alleviate the situation, should we focus on changing public opinions/habits, or both?  What else should we be doing?  We'll take up these and related questions later in our course, but I wanted to draw this to your attention now.

Honors Environmental Philosophy

Welcome to our blog!  Dr. Vanderburgh and the students in his Environmental Philosophy class will post thoughts here weekly during the spring 2011 semester.  Please let us know what you think.  Our goal is to learn more about the scope and methods of environmental philosophy and learn how philosophical thinking can contribute to solutions to the pressing environmental problems that humanity faces in the 21st century.