Friday, March 18, 2011
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.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
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.
Friday, March 11, 2011
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.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
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.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
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.
Friday, March 4, 2011
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
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110304091504.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)