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