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.