Survey Results Update

I am focusing on the gender role theory for my paper, as stated in a previous post. So far, the results have been as I expected, people typically view men as the money makers and women as the lesser role. I am not saying that's what I think, just what society would have people believe. Here's a link to my survey though, feel free to take it.

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2X8F62Q

Survey Results

After drafting some survey questions and sharing them with neighbors, the initial results were exactly what I expected. People responded to the questions as I had anticipated because of the ways people view men and women. People expected the man to make more money, have a better job, etc. This plays into the theme of gender roles which is what my paper is going to be about.

Summary of Michael Marker's Article

In the article Indigenous Resistance and Racist Schooling on the Borders of Empires: Coast Salish Cultural Survival, Michael Marker talks about the Coast Salish people. They live on the border of America and Canada in Washington State and British Columbia. Since the villages are spread out, they are required to travel across the border frequently to be with their people. The colonizing of this area led to racism against the Coast Salish people. The main way that people discriminated against the Coast Salish tribes were through the education system. The schools were designed to erase their memory of their culture and make them more "civilized." To counteract these efforts to assimilate Coast Salish people, they have reclaimed government boarding schools to get away from public schools who were trying to wipe out their culture. 

Appalachian Food and Sustainability

When it comes to food and sustainability, the Appalachian Mountains are a great place to live. There are several family farms all across this region. The is an organization called the Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project, which helps people to know what foods are locally grown so that residents can support the local farmers and keep the farms going. In 2005, North Carolina had the highest rate of losing agricultural land, so the Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project has been working hard to keep farmland in the Appalachian Mountains. 

Environmental Ethics Artifact

This article is an in-depth analysis of environmental ethics:

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~rolston/ee-blackwell-comp.pdf

Also, here is a funny clip that relates very well if you replace business ethics with environmental ethics. All to often big business is so concerned with profit that they have no regard for what is ethical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba2VaalmijM

Discussion of “Feds Link Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time”

The article titled “Feds Link Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time” by Abraham Lustgarten and Nicholas Kusnetz was very informative. Before this piece, I had no idea what fracking was, or the dangers associated with it. The fact that EnCana is denying that fracking is the cause of pollution in the wells the EPA has tested is not surprising, and not totally unjustified. The EPA has found one chemical associated with fracking in wells in Pavillion, but they only found it once. Sure, the company could be being very careful, but the fact that even one source of drinking water was contaminated is unacceptable. Although, since it was only found once it could have not even been EnCana’s fault, which is basically what they are claiming. If this is the case though, then why would they not give a full list of the chemicals used to the EPA so they could be sure? I personally believe that fracking is not only the cause of the pollution, but I think that EnCana knows it, and that’s why they’re being so reluctant to give over the information that the EPA has been requesting. If EnCana was really innocent then they would just tell the EPA what they use and have their name cleared, but they won’t so it’s not too hard to believe that they know they’re polluting the water.

Bill McKibben: Actions speak louder than words

“Bill McKibben: Actions speak louder than words” is an interview between Bill McKibben and the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Bill McKibben is an author, educator, and environmentalist. McKibben wrote the first book about climate change that was intended for the average person titled The End of Nature in 1989. Other books by McKibben include Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet and Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. McKibben also used to be a writer for The New Yorker, where he was referred to as “the world’s best green journalist.” McKibben is also the founder of 350.org, an international grassroots climate campaign. 350.org has coordinated about 20,000 events in every country in the world except North Korea since being founded by McKibben. Needless to say, Bill McKibben has earned his place as one leaders of the environmental movement.

            The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists goes on to ask McKibben several questions about his work as an environmental journalist. The central idea behind 350.org is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere needs to be reduced to below 350 ppm (parts per million) in order for the environment to survive. McKibben is also asked about his book The End of Nature, and about how he says that the planet is running out of time to fix things. If we start burning the oil from the Canadian tar sands, the amount of carbon dioxide could go from 390 ppm, the current level, to about 540 ppm. If this were to happen, it could result in the end of the world.

Thursdays Fracking Assignment

EPA: Natural Gas Fracking Article Response

            The EPA released a report on December 9, 2011, about the effects of natural gas fracking in the town of Pavillion, Wyoming. Hydraulic fracturing, of fracking for short, is the process in which people drill for natural gas. It has been thought in the past that fracking was safe for many reasons. Fluids should have been forced down, not up, the layers of rock should’ve formed a watertight seal preventing chemicals to move up, and that the pollution of wells wasn’t related to fracking. However, it is now being said that those statements are not true, and the chemicals used in the fracking process are finding their way into drinking water.

            There are some opponents to this theory that fracking is dangerous though. Not surprisingly, the company who owns the wells in Pavillion is speaking out against the EPA investigation. EnCana spokesperson Doug Hock says that the company is not to blame, and says that “Nothing EPA presented suggests anything has changed since August of last year--the science remains inconclusive in terms of data, impact, and source." Of course, it is expected that the company would try to defend themselves, seeing how these accusations from the EPA will be pretty bad for business. Hock isn’t the only opponent though. Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma said that the agencies report was offensive. Inhofe’s office also accused the EPA of being biased last year when looking into Wyoming.

            Regardless of who’s to blame, water is still being polluted. The EPA has been monitoring the water for a while now, and has found a few pollutants in drinking water. Some of these chemicals can cause cancer such as benzene, and others are known to be used in fracking such as Butoxyethanol. These chemicals need to be removed from people’s drinking water before something happens to them. Rather or not fracking is the reason for this is irrelevant for now, people need some safe water to drink and then we can worry about pointing fingers.

Visual Rhetoric Image

I think this is a good example of visual rhetoric because it shows who all is under the water when it is polluted. This image puts in context how when oil, for example, is spilled in the ocean it goes directly onto the animals who live beneath the surface. I think often times people picture these coral reefs as beautiful places that need to be protected and when people think of oil spills in the ocean they just think about big open spaces of water were nothing is really effected. The fast of the matter is however that lots of species are effected by pollution.

Response to classroom discussion

Today in class we discussed Richard Kahn's "Towards Ecopedagogy." In the article, he definitely presented
some interesting statistics. For example, 3 billion people live on less than $2 per day, and 1.2 billion live on
less than $1. There is a lot in the article about how capitalism is designed so that the rich get richer and the
poor get poorer. Kahn's main problem was with the educational system. He says that the educational system
isn't broken, it was just designed to control people. People will only go so far based on the schools they go
to, and the elite of society are "better" because they go to more expensive schools. I don't know if I really
agree with all of this though. A degree is only as good as you make it in my opinion. For example, lets look
at two theoretical people, Bob and Joe. Bob was born into a very wealthy family. He got to go to private
school for grade school and Duke for college because his parents were able to afford it and make some
donations along the way. Bob finished towards the bottom of his class in business school, and now has a
decent salary, along with the money he still receives from his parents. Joe however was born into a poor
family. He worked his butt off through the public school system, and eventually went to NC State on
scholarship. He graduated top of his class, and went on to start his own business. Joe spent all of his time
working to make his company succeed, often upwards of 70 hours per week for the first few years.
Eventually, his business took off and is now making several million dollars per year. According to the system
Kahn describes this can't happen, but it does. Sure, the wealthier you are the more advantages you have, but
that's not the system that's just nature. I think that a person's success is a reflection of primarily how hard
they work, not the system.

Themes in Turtle Island

There are several poems in the book Turtle Island. Most of them are about the environment, and what needs to be done to save it. This is my attempt to discover some of the themes within these poems.

Front Lines: This poem is about how America is growing so fast, and trying to build and urbanize everywhere that we can. Snyder says that we need to “draw our line” so that the urbanization will stop. We need to be on the front lines of this battle against urbanization.

“One Should Not Talk to a Skilled Hunter about What is Forbidden by the Buddha” – Hsiang-yen: In this poem, a gray fox is being skinned and cleaned. When they get to the contents of the stomach, they find a squirrel. Inside the squirrel, they find a piece of aluminum foil. The theme of this poem is that pollution might not affect everything directly, but it does affect everything on the planet in some way or another.

For the Children: This poem talks about how civilization is going up, but headed down at the same time. It’s saying that civilization is kind of peaking and headed towards a crash. However, it mentions how people say that the future will be ok for our children if they can get there. The theme is that society just assumes there will be a future no matter how badly we treat the earth.

Eaarth

The Bill McKibben podcast was very informative. Eaarth brings to light many issues about what is wrong 

with the world today. The first thing the average reader might notice when reading the title is the peculiar 

spelling of the word Earth. The reason for the extra “a” is because the Earth as we know it today is very 

different from when it was created.

Deforestation of the Rainforests

            A major environmental issue that I am going to focus on today is the deforestation (cutting down) of the rainforests. I’m sure you’re wondering how a bunch of trees on the other side of the planet can actually have an impact on you here at home. Well consider this: every time you breathe your body takes in oxygen so that you can live, right? Of course it does. The rainforest is responsible for about a fourth of all the oxygen on the planet, and that’s a pretty big chunk. I don’t know about you, but the current level of oxygen is working just fine for me. I really don’t want it going anywhere.

That’s not all though! If the rainforest is producing that much oxygen that means it’s also responsible for a quarter of all the photosynthesis that is taking place on the planet. So now you’re asking yourself: why does this matter? We all know that too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a big cause of global warming. One of the biggest ways carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere is from photosynthesis, because carbon dioxide plus a few other things are what the plants use to make the oxygen in the first place. Additionally the actual process of cutting all these trees down produces a lot of carbon dioxide. So, with all those extra greenhouse gases, the world is going to get a whole lot hotter a whole lot faster.

The third reason why we have to fight to keep the rainforests is because of what they can give us. Currently, there are about 3000 different species of plants that are helpful in the fight against cancer. Of those, 70% can only be found in the rainforest. Also, 25% of the active ingredients in cancer drugs are only from the rainforest. So many people would die from cancer if we didn’t have these trees. That’s not even the crazy part though. One fourth of all the medicine we have comes from the rainforest, but scientists haven’t even tested 1% of the species available in the rainforest for their medicinal possibilities. That right there is alarming. The rainforest could very well contain the cure to cancer, and maybe even to many stronger illnesses that are gearing up for the future! Knowing that, if we aren’t willing to do something to stop destroying the rainforests then what does that say about us as a species?

Maybe Roderick Nash was right. Maybe the only way the give the rest of the earth a chance is for us to just go away into our island civilizations and leave the rest of the world alone. Maybe however, we can still do something about it. Some nations have begun to give an incentive to people who don’t clear cut the rainforests. Sure, this isn’t a permanent solution because we can’t afford to pay off everyone, but it’s a start! The fact that people are realizing the importance of these trees should give us all a little hope that it isn’t too late for this planet.

            In conclusion, the rainforest doesn’t just contain many different species on this planet; it also may contain the key to our survival. We need the rainforest to breathe, to reduce carbon dioxide levels, and to help fight disease. I’m not saying that stopping deforestation is going to fix all of our problems, but it’s a whole lot better than fixing none of our problems. One day in the future hopefully we can save this beautiful place, and maybe with a little luck, this planet too.

Sources:

http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/

Summary/Response to "Island Civilization"

Summary

            The essay was titled “Island Civilizations” by Roderick Nash. It starts off by saying that the concept of a millennium is rather new. This is because nobody has ever really had a need to think about time in units of a thousand years. However, with the current state of our planet, the next millennium is rather important. Humans have been expanding so rapidly that we have started having very negative effects on the environment. In order for us to make in another millennium, something has got to change drastically.

            Nash goes on to say that the key to our survival is in the wilderness. This is ironic because it is in civilization’s nature to tame these wild areas, when really we need them in order to maintain our existence. One suggestion made by philosophers is that we make some sort of ecological contract which would be much like John Locke’s social contract. Basically, this is saying that we would limit people’s freedom in the greater good of the environment and survival.

            There are a couple different scenarios for the fourth millennium. First is the wasteland scenario. This says that the earth will become “a trashed, poisoned, and used-up planet that can support only a pathetic remnant of its once-miraculous biodiversity and civilization.” Next there is the garden scenario. Humans would have turned the entire planet into some sort of greenhouse where the environment is completely artificial; everything would be controlled by people. Third we have the future primitive. In this future people have reverted back to ancient ways of hunting and gathering to survive. Lastly, Nash introduces us the concept of island civilization.

            Island civilization is essentially a utopian society, or rather several utopian societies concentrated in scattered parts of the world. The idea is to have minimal impact on the earth. We would stay in our bubble (quite literally actually) and let the rest of the world flourish without us. With advanced technology, we could have these cities in remote places where other species would seldom have contact with us. Imagine a city underwater, on the North Pole, or maybe even in the sky. With the technology of the future the possibilities are endless.

            Nash concludes by reminding us that our planet is in need of help. On paper, the Earth isn’t looking too good right now. But if we put the work in, we can turn it around. The world we live in is the only one we have, so what better time to start doing something to save it than now?

Response

            I found this essay to be both interesting, and informative. I know that there is a lot we need to be doing to make the Earth a better place to live, but I had never considered the Earth that far down the line. The fact of the matter is, if we don’t start preparing for the future of this planet, it is going to eventually turn into a wasteland.

            So, which one of the futuristic scenarios do I advocate? Well, let’s start with the garden scenario. Personally, I am not a big fan of this. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think having humans in control of things like atmosphere and weather is such a good thing. Sure, at first it sounds nice, but what happens when one of their calculations is just slightly off? I can see it now: some guy in the weather department takes a nap on the job while the gauge regulating air pressure goes out, and all of a sudden you have a tornado ripping through downtown Raleigh. Or better yet, he forgets to check the oxygen levels and oops! There goes our air. Granted, the technology would be far superior to what we have today and I’m assuming it would be nearly impossible for it to fail, but still the fact is people make mistakes. I just don’t think it would be a good idea for humans to have that much power over the planet.

            Perhaps the future primitive scenario? Ok, that sounds cool and everything, kind of like camping only you can never come back and if you’re no good at it you die. Nah, I don’t want to live like ancient people, I like riding my motorcycle too much. Besides, if I really had the urge to go live off the land for a bit, that’s included in the island civilization.

            That’s right, I’m all for this island civilization. Sure, it would have its down sides, but personally it sounds a heck of a lot better than the whole toxic wasteland thing. Plus, there was the whole city underwater or in the sky thing, that was pretty cool. We could keep to ourselves and the rest of the world could recover from all the damage we’ve done over our short existence.

            The main thing I got out of this essay though, was that we need to start thinking about our future. All of this utopian society stuff is a little far-fetched in the year 2012, but we can still start taking steps to pave the way for the year 3000. Humans cannot keep going on with this “let the next guy worry about it” attitude that has really seemed to become so prominent in the past century. As a young child I was taught that if I borrowed something from a friend, I better return in it better condition than how I received it. Humans have really done a number on the Earth. So when our time is up, hopefully we can say we left it a little nicer than how we found it.