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.

The Nature of the Everglades - A discussion on Marjory Douglas' excerpt

Source

II. The Grass 

The author paints a very clear picture of the grass in the Everglades. I believe she is trying to personify the saw grass and make it come to life. She states that the saw grass is "so simple, so enduring, so hostile". I believe she is saying that the saw grass is simple because of the way it looks. Saw grass is basically sharp grass that can cut you. So hostile because again it can cut you. It's enduring because of the way it grows on top of decay. Each layer of decay is a little piece of history. Ashes, marks of fire or lightning are some of the signs of history each layer contains.

 III. The Water 

The author explains how the water in the Everglades is formed and it's climate. She explains how the water comes from the rain and how logically it falls so that it is supplied where it is needed. Furthermore, she explains how all the seasons blend together and that in that area no extreme temperatures exist. I believe she again is trying to have the water in the Everglades come to life. She states that everything comes together to let the waters flow and bring life to the Everglades. All the marshes and lakes that contribute to the water that holds life in the Everglades are battling against our water usage. I believe she's attempting to say that the Everglades are struggling to survive because of us and that we are destroying the beautiful life that flourishes in the Everglades.

IV. The Rock 

The author describes the rock as the guardian of the water, grass and life of the Everglades. She states that the sea and the lakes have shaped this rock. She also states how fascinating it is that the way the rock was made to help life flourish and protect it. I believe the author is trying to help the reader understand how everything comes together in this section. The rock is the reason the water and the grass exist and flourish in what we call the Everglades. She's trying to show how everything worked together, every tiny detail, to help each other grow in harmony - one helping the other.

Solomon MacIvey - A discussion about A Land Remembered character

Source

Solomon MacIvey was introduced in the first few chapters of the book. He was an older man who lived in Miami. Solomon was ashamed at all the destruction going on around him and therefore wanted to spend the rest of his days surrounded by nature as he once was during his childhood. He travels to see his Indian brother and asks him to join him on his journey. His brother refuses and said that they both have separate journeys they must take before they leave this earth. He gives away his beloved Rolls Royce to his chauffeur and enough money to take care of him and his family.

MacIvey realized that the land his ancestors depended on for survival was now seen as a business opportunity instead of for what it really was. His family started off relying on the land and he exploited that land for financial gain.

Solomon had a strong sense of place being surrounded by nature. He was taught how to live alongside the land and survive off of it. When he saw opportunity to build wealth by using the land he was consumed by greed and destroyed his sense of place. The legacy he left behind was none because he was the last of his family line. All he had to show for was money.

I don't relate to this character too much because I've always been conscious about the environment and its importance. I pick up trash when I'm walking on sidewalks, I don't litter, and I'm mindful of the environment around me so that I do not cause it harm. However, I'm sure that I'm not perfect. I have a car, I use a lot of electricity, and I'm sure I do other things that aren't great for the environment. Hopefully, we'll find ways to live how we want and respect the world around us at the same time before its too late.

A Land Ethic - A discussion on Aldo Leopold's excerpt

                                                                          Source

Quote 1: "Conservation is a state of harmony between man and land."

I completely agree with this statement. Although I don't believe we should live in a world void of buildings and technology. We should definitely find a happy medium so that we don't destroy all of the world's habitats. Even though I don't believe that is likely due to the fact that a lot of the world's wonders are nature-based.

Quote 2:"Science has given us many doubts, but it has given us at least one certainty: the trend of evolution is to elaborate and diversify biota."

I'm not sure where this author got this information from. Not only does he not provide a source for this information, he makes a scientific claim without backing up his beliefs. Of course everything we know about science can have some doubt but, for the most part science has been able to explain several phenomena that has helped us realize the importance of nature. If science has given us many doubts then why is it that the author keeps discussing food pyramids, food chains, and evolution. Everything the author believes in that has any scientific foundation is without a "doubt" true and worthy of much attention. I believe the author is a bit biased towards his beliefs and I'm not sure why he made a statement like this.

Quote 3:"Agricultural Science is largely a race between the emergence of new pests and the emergence of new techniques for their control."

I'm not sure why pest control is such a big issue. Why would we let mosquitoes and other insects/animals like them harm us? That just makes no sense to me. I don't know what pests do for the environment but if they harm us and hurt our species, why is it so wrong to find ways to control them? Species of plants and animals find ways to keep out of harms way by either having poisonous skin or venomous fangs. Why can't humans use technology and intelligence as their tools for keeping out of harms way and advancing themselves? From my knowledge, all animals mostly have the same goal, it is to live long enough to reproduce and populate the earth. Why can't humans have a goal of their own? Why must we be altruistic, warm and kind when other species can be so unforgiving?

Nature-Deficit Disorder - A discussion on Richard Louv's excerpt

                                                                                             (Source)

Quote 1:"...detachment of education from the physical world not only coincided with dramatic rise in life-threatening childhood obesity..."

I completely agree with this statement made by Richard Louv. Physical is an essential part in any school environment. I remember when I was younger and taking PE classes, I would look forward to those classes to get some fresh air and blow some steam while I prepared for the next round of school-related tasks. Big companies like Google and Apple let their employees relax and have fun in the work environment because it has been proven that it helps with work productivity and creativity. Additionally, physical education courses help children learn about how to eat correctly and how to stay active. Some children end up displaying athletic talent and they should be able to learn more about physical activity so that they can pursue their interests. 

Quote 2:"For many of us, intuition emphatically asserts that nature is good for children."

I don't agree with this statement because it's relying on intuition to prove something scientific. You can't just say that nature is good for children. No focus is put on the activities that the children are engaged in once outside. One could state that one cure for ADHD is physical activity or to engage in constructive tasks in lieu of watching television shows. The author did not state any research on children performing the same activities they do outside in a different environment with less vegetation. Whether or not this type of research exists, the results of such an experiment would help aid those who wish to prove that nature is good for children.

Quote 3:"To take nature and natural play away from children may be tantamount to withholding oxygen"

I don't understand why the author would make this correlation. It seems as if the author is attempting to employ a scare tactic to further prove his point. The author is also attempting to describe the effects of nature on ADHD. Why is he now preposing that a lack of nature leads to suffocation? I don't understand how they both correlate and feel that the author should have taken this statement out. The statement could have also been replaced to something more appropriate and less extreme. 

Biophilia vs. Biophobia - A discussion on David W. Orr's excerpt

                                         (photo taken by me)

Quote 1: "A third possibility is that at some level of alertness and maturity, we respond with awe to the natural world independent of any instinctual conditioning"

I completely agree with this quote. I recently traveled to South Lake Tahoe with my girlfriend during the winter and I loved every bit of it. As soon as we started approaching the area we came across creeks that were absolutely beautiful. We stopped and got out of the car just to admire the beauty of the nature around us. Even while driving up the mountain we were completely in shock at how beautiful everything was. There was definitely an innate feeling of happiness as we admired the trees, plants, bays, and the lake. We also went snowmobiling up a mountain and had incredible scenery of all the trees and also got a great view of the lake. We even planned a return trip for the summer to enjoy the numerous trails and tours available to us because we enjoyed the experience so much.

Quote 2: "Fifth, we have it on good authority that love is patient..."

The author quotes the bible and then uses the bible's definition of love to connect nature and love. He then goes on to quote a theologian's proposed six dimensions of love. I don't agree with the fact that the author attempted to insert religion into his excerpt in order to prove a point. Additionally, the paragraph is completely useless and does not help move the author’s message forward. The paragraph should be taken out entirely or a different point should be devised in order for the author to back-up his beliefs about Biophillia.

Quote 3: "How long will it be until the genetic engineers or nanotechnologists release an AIDS-like virus?"

I'm not completely sure what point the author was attempting to make with this statement. Why would nanotechnologists and genetic engineers release an AIDS-like virus? Why would they be making viruses in the first place? One possibility could be to study their behavior but I'm sure there's ways to contain something so dangerous in the unlikely event that we would create an AIDS-like virus. Additionally, why is the author bashing genetics and nanotechnology? These are two fields that could potentially cure most fatal diseases and help extend our lives. Furthermore, how are genetic engineering and nanotechnology harming the environment? The statement was very misplaced and I'm not sure what point the author was attempting to illustrate.