Plan B 4.0 - A discussion on Chapter 10 and Earth Charter

Source

(1) - "Every country should have a population stabilization policy..." 

I understand how this would help with our overpopulation problem but unfortunately there aren't any good ways to stabilize populations that don't involve seriously immoral acts. For example, China allowed it's people to only have one child. This caused Chinese families to abort their female babies so that they could propagate the family name with a male baby. Although, a population stabilization policy sounds good in theory, it is not great in practice. Unless we can come up with something better than the Chinese, we are at a stand still with this issue.

THE EARTH CHARTER 

(1) Respect and Care for the Community of Life 

The Earth Charter states that we should "care for the community of life with understanding, compassion, and love". Shiva felt the same way in the excerpt we read for class. When I first read the excerpt I was very skeptical and didn't fully agree with Shiva's point of view. Now that I have learned more about the environment and the destruction we are instantiating, I have changed my point of view. As a child, I was very compassionate for living things and I even picked trash up off the sides of the street. As I got older, I became more and more apathetic to the environment and its creatures and began throwing trash out the window and ending the lives of animals who trespassed in my home. I'll make sure not to kill the next frog that gets in my house but instead capture it and put it back where it belongs.  

(2) Ecological Integrity 

The Earth Charter states that we should "adopt patterns of production, consumption, and reproduction that safeguard Earth's regenerative capacities, human rights, and community well-being".  I remember while reading Rachel Carson's Silent Spring and coming across a quote. She stated that we are "an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar is seldom challenged." She's completely right. It's not very often that someone is discriminated for trying to make some money. Unfortunately, there is a lot of crooked people in this world that will attempt to make money at whatever cost to the environment and those around them. Not many people have made millions of dollars without some sort of fraud and that is completely immoral. Unfortunately, the way that this world is set up, it's very difficult to change the reoccurrences of this behavior. Money is power and that's the way it is until we can devise a different method. 

(3) Social and Economic Justice 

The Earth Charter states that we should have "...universal access to education, health care, and economic opportunity".  In Plan B 4.0 Chapter 1, Brown states that "China has become banker to the United States". Well he is right. This same statement applies to this section of the Earth Charter. Unfortunately, universal access to education and health care will come at a price whether we like it or not. Someone is going to have to pay for these services and that is an inevitable part of the world we live in. If all these services were free, there would be no incentive to work hard and prosper. People would be fine with menial jobs because there would be no reason to reach for the stars.  

(4) Democracy, Non-Violence, and Peace 

The Earth Charter states that we should "treat all living beings with respect and consideration". I remember in class we discussed endangered species and during that discussion, I thought about fishing and hunting. If I take a step back and truly analyze fishing and hunting, it's all very cruel if the animal is not killed immediately. No animal should suffer. When people fish for fun they reel a fish in, unclip it and throw it back in the water with a hole in its mouth. I think that is very cruel. why not just catch the fish and then eat it for dinner that day so that the fish would serve a purpose and not suffer?

Plan B 4.0 - A discussion on Chapter 3

Source

(1) - "If we continue with business as usual, the projected rise in the earth's average temperature of 1.1-6.4 degrees Celsius during this century seems all too possible" 

I understand that rising temperatures are a problem. The one thing I don't understand is how such little increases within a century could cause such catastrophic effects to occur.  I guess those rises every century could lead the whole earth to be covered entirely by water and most of the world population dead. I think scientists will find a way for us all to survive under those conditions. The only problem I see with that is that we will need these advances to survive and with everything necessary there are people who will climb prices in order to make a profit. The creation of money was very smart but unfortunately not every idea is perfect.

(2) - "What we can anticipate with a warmer climate is more extreme weather events. The insurance industry is painfully aware of the relationship between higher temperatures and storm intensity" 

I was not aware that changes in climate could affect insurance companies. Although I'm sure that changes in insurance prices are the least of our concern it could be used as an incentive to take care of our environment. If the reason we are destroying the environment relates to our greed then we must use money as a reason for taking care of our environment. For some reason, the mass destruction of the human race and an earth covered entirely by water wasn't a good enough reason. The people that run this earth must not see these threats as a problem. Maybe because all of these threats are not real and the obvious destruction of earth's environments aren't good enough proof to induce action amongst earths leaders.

(3) - "..Greenland icecap is melting so fast that it is triggering minor earthquakes as pieces of ice weighing millions of tons break off and slide into the sea"

That's crazy. Ice caps causing earthquakes. I didn't even know that could happen. I've never seen such a story on the news. That makes me wonder if this actually happens or not because I'm sure everyone would have heard about it. Why are we not making this world news so that we can wake up and find a compromise. Doesn't mean we have to give up all the advances we have. We just have to use them more sparingly and keep the environment in mind when producing new technologies. I wonder why we never thought of this approach before? Probably because enough profits can't be made if production is slowed.

Plan B 4.0 - A discussion on Chapter 2

Source

(1) - ”As land and water become scarce, competition for these vital resources intensifies within societies, particularly between the wealthy and those who are poor and dispossessed.”

I don’t think we are anywhere near this scenario just yet. The thought definitely scares me and I completely agree. We need water to survive and land to live on. Unfortunately, if we keep over-consuming and destroying our soils this unfortunate scenario will come true. Thousands of lives would be lost to dehydration or other illnesses related to a lack of water. I just don’t understand how greed could drive someone to knowingly destroy all our water supplies. The scarier thought is that no one is stopping these companies. Isn’t there supposed to be policies in place so that we don’t overexploit the earth’s resources?

(2) - “In this new situation, when the price of oil climbs, the world price of grain moves up toward its oil-equivalent value.”

I didn’t know that grain and oil were so connected. I had no idea we were actually giving up security in our food sources to produce more automobiles. That’s insane to me. I almost don’t want to believe it. From what it seems, the United States is doing a lot better then other countries but I believe if we keep using up our resources we will be in the same situation. It’s unbelievable how making money becomes more important then the future of the human race. Countries just waste away their soils so that they can make money. It makes you think what these countries want so much money for when they can’t help their own people?

(3) - “The grain required to fill an SUV’s 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year.”

This quote startled me the most. I was shocked to find out that a 25-gallon tank with ethanol could feed one person for a whole year. The problem is that cars are very convenient. Do we stop production of cars altogether? That is a very difficult question to answer. I don’t think production of cars would stop until the problem gets much worse. Unfortunately, that’s how we have been dealing with environmental issues over the past years and look where we are now in terms of environmental sustainability. We just do something and worry about the effects later. Then we try to solve the problem by making another technological solution instead of looking at the root of the issue. I don’t believe that is the right way to solve a problem but it seems to be working for now…

Food Inc. - My thoughts

Source

Destruction and Morality

These companies are the ones ruining America. Not only are they feeding the population food filled with chemicals but also destroying the environment and adding to our illegal immigration problem. They have no morality. Illegal immigrants are brought to America and put to work and then after years of dedication they are stabbed in the back. They see animals as things and not living creatures and treat them like trash. I don't know how anyone can have the heart to do such a thing. Why is everyone so consumed by greed? Why must they have more and more money when they already have enough? I don't understand it.

Bad Living Situations for Animals 

I was completely horrified at the conditions these animals were placed in. Chickens were in very tight spaces living in their own filth and to make matters worse, no sunlight alongside all the hormones being pumping into their bodies. The pigs and cows were also kept in horrific conditions and being force fed corn, antibiotics and hormones. I can honestly say that I'm not as proud to be an American when this is going on and the governing agencies are either being paid off or corrupt. I think that maybe they were established by these monsters in order to provide the population with a false sense of security so that they can keep on making their dirty money.

Organic Movement

I believed the organic movement was a good one and food was finally going to be rid of GMO's and chemicals. Unfortunately, the organic food is coming from these same three or four companies which really makes you question the validity of their statements. It's disgusting all of the lies and false advertising we are fed on a daily basis alongside the chemical bath delicacies that these monsters create.

Monsanto's Control 

I knew about Monsanto before watching this video and I can say that what they do is also horrific. They are completely immoral people. How could they patent something that comes from nature that they ruined with gene mutation and then go on to ruin those who actually make an honest living? This monopoly needs to be destroyed one way or the other. I don't know what the repercussions would be but there's no way that a company like this can exist.

Plan B 4.0 - A discussion on Chapter 1

Source

Quote 1: "Business as usual is no longer a viable option. Food security will deteriorate further unless leading countries collectively mobilize to stabilize population, stabilize climate, stabilize aquifers, conserve soils, protect cropland, and restrict the use of grain to produce fuel for cars."

I did not know this was such an important issue until I read Chapter 1 of this book. I agree with the author and we should start taking action towards fixing our Earth. We must reach a happy medium with all things and not overuse anything for our own greed. Just like Solomon MacIvey in A Land Remembered, we will all regret taking our Earth for granted. Efforts to fix the damage our greed has caused must be made promptly so that future generations can benefit from this beautiful planet.

Quote 2:"...and the Democratic Republic of the Congo where expanding cropland typically means clearing tropical rainforests that sequester large quantities of carbon. This could measurably raise global carbon emissions, increasing the climate threat to world food security."

I do not agree with this statement at all. The rainforests should be the last habitat to take down. The rainforest is vital for our survival. All of the life forms in tropical rainforests help regulate our climate and if they're destroyed, it could mean drastic changes in climate. Changes in climate could affect sea levels and inundate entire states. Alongside that fact, there are thousands of species living in the rainforest who depend on the unique climate to survive. If we take out rainforests we are destroying yet another habitat and then reducing the diversity of species which has problems of its own. It's scary how much greed has made us lose sight of what's important in life.

Quote 3:"But this is not an option with China, which now holds well over $1 trillion in U.S. debt. It is often the leading international buyer at the monthly auctions of U.S. Treasury securities that finance the growing U.S. fiscal deficit. In effect, China has become banker to the United States."

I just don't understand how the U.S. could owe that much money to China. This mindset of borrowing and paying back later is destroying consumers in the U.S. Many finance books state that one should cut their credit cards in half and throw them away. Borrowing money with the intention to pay back later or monthly with small payments combined with interest is not a good idea for most people. Most people will buy an 80 inch TV and pay it off monthly with interest even though they can't afford it. Those people never live a life of financial freedom. Why would the U.S. be so ignorant to the repercussions of their actions?

Biodiversity - A discussion on Vandana Shiva's excerpt

Source

1."Our ignorance of the ecological functions of diverse forms of life is no excuse to push species to extinction..."

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. We should definitely make sure that we take into account the repercussions of messing with species. I believe that it is not very intelligent to grab species and experiment on them later bringing them to near extinction for financial gain. That is morally wrong but sometimes required to advance our own species. It's difficult to decide whether to destroy one valuable thing or the other. Unfortunately, we must find a balance so that we do not end up destroying all life in the process. Ignorance is not bliss and if we continue to view it as such, our future does not seem so bright.

2."Compassion for all livings things has been the basis of most ancient faiths..."

I don't agree with this statement at all. Just because ancient faiths had compassion for all living things doesn't mean that we should all adopt that philosophy. The author provides no reasoning as to why we should adopt them. I think there's a reason why ancient philosophies are not prevalent today such as cavemen no longer exist. They're old, outdated and did not prove prosperous in terms of our survival. Maybe the author had a very good point in mind but didn't elaborate on it. Therefore, me as the reader was left confused as to why someone would make such a statement and then provide no evidence of its effectiveness.


3. "It has been estimated that three billion people... depend on traditional medicines as a principle source of cures for disease."

I don't understand this statement at all. Isn't traditional medicine the same thing as the medicine we have now? We also use plants for our medicines so I'm not really sure what point the author is trying to make here. I understand that not all of our medicines are plant-based but why is it wrong for us to want to cure disease? Some of it might be harmful to the environment but I'm sure we've done our research and figured out that it's worth it for some treatments because there might not be something in nature that could alleviate certain symptoms.

Silent Spring - A discussion on Rachel Carson's excerpt

Source

Quote 1: "It is also an era dominated by industry, in which the right to make a dollar at whatever cost is seldom challenged." 

I completely agree with this statement. Mankind has become more concerned with making money then anything else. Unfortunately, money is what helps us survive. For those who always had money they don't understand the struggles of those who weren't as fortunate. Money is power and unfortunately that's the way it is for now. Maybe one day we could invent a new way to live harmoniously with the life around us. Maybe we won't all be so greedy but if money doesn't motivate us to invent and innovate, what will? Maybe it's the altruistic nature in us that will help move us along. Even though I feel as if we have become more and more selfish as a species.

Quote 2: "This is an era of specialists, each of whom sees his own problem and is unaware of or intolerant of the larger frame into which it fits."

I think most so-called specialists are aware that their solutions might not have the best effect on the natural world. Everything in the world has trade offs and unfortunately effects on the natural world are the easiest to overlook. Maybe these specialists think that the effects their solutions have are not irreparable. Maybe they're thinking, "I'll make money off of this and then later we will worry about the effects of this creation". Mankind has been creating and inventing in order for our survival. We created spears to hunt and used caves for refuge. Now we have guns, money, buildings, and advanced healthcare. We are only trying to make sure that we survive and thrive as a species. Other species are attempting to do the same. Why is it so wrong for us to overlook environmental damage when our "solutions" help solve serious problems?

Quote 3: "...radiation is now the unnatural creation of man's tampering with the atom." 

Why is it that our tampering with the atom is so unnatural? We are curious beings that thirst for knowledge. It is in our nature to investigate and analyze. We want to know how this world works, this was ingrained in our brains. How is this unnatural? I wish there were more answers to questions like these but I'm not sure that our investigative nature is unnatural. It is a natural desire to learn. We tampered with the atom so that we could defend against others of our own kind trying to cause harm. This is a problem in its own right.