Blog 4

In the first reading "Ecosystems and Human Well-being", it talks of how the human race has had impacts on the environment in everything that they do, and now that we are looking to the future things are looking not so good. There was a report (the Millennium Development Goals) The report went out to point out four possible scenarios that the earth and its inhabitants could take to help reduce/deplete the many crises that affect the current day populations. The report showed that each of the possible scenarios (the most likely of the bunch) they were all tied to one common element. And that element was the fact that there needed to be a sustainable development plan that really took hold of the current environmental situations and tried to remedy them. At the end of the reading it asks: "Why is it so difficult to manage ecosystems sustainably " I believe that it is hard to manage an ecosystem sustainably because there are (first off) many factors that we may not be aware of when we are trying to gain control to managing an ecosystem. Also there is the fact that the many ecosystems of the world generally have a cycle, something takes from the system, but also gives back. Us humans are used to living in a linear fashion, we take then instead of giving back we throw our wastes at the system (and in some cases animals just throw their waste as well, but their waste is much more well suited for the system than ours) This is the two biggest concerns that I have when i think of humans working to manage an ecosystem!

In the second reading "Living downstream; An ecologist looks at cancer and the environment", it talks of the authors life and how she was adopted and all the people that were in her adopted family, as well as her got one or another kind of cancer. This led her to the thinking that it must not only be the fact that people are related and the cancer is 'passed down' but there must be other environmental reasons or variables that helped mutate the cells. The reading speaks of how there are many bi-laws and regulations in place that reduce or eliminate certain carcinogens in the environment, but they still persist int the human tissues and environment that people are in contact with every day. At the end of the reading it asks: "Why is it hard to tell whether - and how much - a chemical is carcinogenic in humans?" I think that it is hard to tell how much of an effect a cancerous material will have on a human because we are all different, no matter how similar we are, there are always factors that make us much different than one another. This is what i believe makes it hard to figure out these things for humans, what are the safe levels for a human, what can be considered an average human? Might we need to create different "Averages" for different parts of the world, or for those that live in much different ways and places than others?

In the third reading "Our Stolen Future", they speak of how there are certain tests and procedures that must be completed before a chemical or drug can be put on the market and how the current method of testing these things, is to take a sample of the chemical, and administer a dosage to a test subject. This method was for the longest time thought to be an incorrect method in that the results were too high or bloated if you will. While in reality (and after a lot more experiments  it was discovered that the high and short term dosage was much less dangerous than the small doses over a long period of time. The reading went on to spell out that the human race will be doomed to fail (most likely to infertility due to the endocrine distributors)  in the near future if this kind of ignorance is to continue. At the end of the reading it asks:  "Is cancer the only health effect of environmental contaminants that should concern us?" I think that cancer is one of those things that genuinely concerns people because it has such an air of unknown surrounding it. For the longest time I personally believed that everything could give you cancer, and there was nothing you could do about it. When you had cancer you were doomed to die. And the worst part of it all was that I thought that it was completely random, I think that if we are going to get concerned we should use this fear of cancer as a tool to promote awareness. (Much like a keystone species is used to help generate awareness of an environmental concern)

In the fourth reading "Environmental Justice for All", it talks about how there are certain communities in the US that are not given fair judgement on issues relating to the placement or disposal of dangerous and harmful chemicals. There are several places where the communities have fought with the cooperation and have lobbied governments to create laws and bilaws that make the communities that are more poor, or ethnically different, safer from the kinds of decisions that would introduce harmful elements into the surrounding environment. At the end of the reading it poses a question: "How do people with money keep the polluting industries out of their neighborhoods " I think that people with more money have that money for a reason. They have connections in the world that help keep the bigger cooperations out of their front lawns. Also there is the fact that this is an American example, and when there is something that is not supported by those with the moneys, there is sure to be a lawsuit or two costing absurd amounts of money coming up the walkway.

In the fifth reading "Impacts of Biodiversity, Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services" it talks of how we have been destroying the marine ecosystems that are close to human activities. We have been polluting the waters, over fishing and creating a host of other problems for the inhabitants of the marine systems. It also speaks of how the ecosystems that have more biodiversity are more likely to bounce back from any sort of an event due to the fact that they are harder to remove. Sounds quite negative when put that way but it is true, not every species acts the same when a similar stimulant is introduced and therefore that difference in action will cause an ecosystem to have more stable parts. Thus allowing for an easier rebound when and if at all possible. At the end of the reading it asks "Why are commercial fisheries in decline?" I think that commercial fisheries are in decline because, well first off many of the worlds most abundant fishing areas are being depleted due to over fishing, and therefore if there is less fish in the sea, then there is less fish caught and sold. This means that people that have been sustaining themselves for decades are doing better as they do not have the huge overhead costs that the commercial fisheries have. They are able to better mange their resources and money.

For the activity I watched the Ted talk "William McDonough on cradle to cradle design" It was about how we as humans can create places and things that no longer work in linear ways, products and places that circulate materials and parts. This sort of designing would create a world that is more sustainable in that the centers are created to work with the idea that if at all possible reuse, then recycle and never throw away. (or at least if you are going to throw away something, 'throw' it away in a way that something else can use or benefit from it) This idea of creating and using things in a more cyclic way is one of those things that makes me stop and say "Why in the name of heaven and hell are we not doing this now?!?" The sheer idea that we are creating things that have only one use, and then get thrown away, and not thrown away in a good way either, just thrown away so that it can sit there and hopefully degrade to a point where no one will see it again. This kind of a society can not be supported and must be stopped, this is why I feel a great need to shout out about this cyclic design over the linear design!!

In this class I have matured a great bit, in that when I first came to this class I had little to no of an idea to the extent of the damages that us humans were causing for the earth. This class has taught me that even though we humans have been screwing up the world for quite a while now, and the future is looking bleak, there are always answers  solutions or ideas that can remedy these problems. This class has taught me not only about the environment and how to treat it, but also how to raise my voice and let others hear my concerns about our actions. In class we were given a blog reflection and it asked "As this course on environmental issues concludes, what do you feel are the most pressing environmental issues facing the world today?" I feel that this answer is not so much the biggest and baddest issue that surrounds us today, but the fact that there is one issue (at least i feel) that if corrected, i think will cause the rest of the issues that we face to become more transparent in ways that it can be solved. Our western society is a buy, buy, shop and spend society. When we are not happy we feed the giant beast that can be called consumerism, to some the beast is an animal of great beauty and majesticness but to others, all we see is the tracks that it leaves in the environment and the giant piles of waste that accumulate around its bottom. This is what i feel the most pressing issue that faces us today is, if we can correct this type of thinking, to only buy what we need, and to buy things that we can use more than once. This will create a society that is ready to tackle the great environmental issues, this will mold a society into thinking about where things come from, where they go and what impacts they have on others the entire journey that the item or service has.

Blog 3

     In the first reading, "Could food shortages bring down civilization?" it talks about how there is a lot of grains being grown, those grains could feed the world but instead they are mostly going towards feeding livestock, thus leaving less for humans. It also speaks of how there are ground aquifers that are not able to be replenished by rainwater or any other means. And these water sources are being pumped to a point where they will no longer be able to sustain the current needs and activities of agriculture. And finally it talks about how this will ultimately affect the human population, and what some plans are that can help slow, stop or even reverse this process. The currently adapted plan comes in four parts, first we need to cut the carbon emissions by at least 80%, thus helping slow the earths warming effect and save some of those crops. Next we need to stabilize the worlds population, this will help create less waste, and create a more predictable future, therefore allowing for effective long term planning. Third we need to eradicate poverty, no poverty means everyone is contributing to their economies and thus allowing for the advancement of the human race. Finally we need to restore the forests, soils and aquifers of the world. Really that one is a no brainier, do that and we can prosper for many generations to come! At the end of the reading it poses a question: "According to Lester Brown, what is the greatest threat to global political stability?" The short answer to this is the possibility of a food shortage. The long answer is that of several parts, the way our past endevers have taught us that there is never a prolonged shortage of food, but in the past they have never been faced with the problems that may pop up in the future. One for instance is that the aquifers in some of the most productive countries around the world are starting to show their age in that they are being depleted, no water means no crops. And if there is no way to replenish that water then there is no way for the future to grow crops.

In the second reading, "Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation" is about how women are not being accounted for when there is a count of total production within a country and this is what I am assuming has the writer up in arms about, the fact that some of the most crucial players in the production of grains, meat and milk are not being allowed to be a part of the total count at the end of the day. Then at the end of the chapter it asks: " What is an ecofeminist?" An ecofeminist is someone (usually a woman) who feels that that the roles and lives of women are being dominated by their male counter parts (whether it be a husband, employer or other relation) but the person is more focused on environmental problems.

In the third reading, "Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems" it is about how humans have been changing the face of the earth, and how recently the changes that we are making are more frequent and bigger. The changes that we make have affected a great portion of the surface of the earth and its inhabitants. It then goes on to talk about how we have changed or affected the different cycles in our ecosystems (water cycle, nitrogen cycle, carbon cycle... etc)It concludes with a summary about how we are not able to make the decisions for the future later, but they must be done and executed now, while there is still a slim chance to make the earth as bountiful as it once was. At the end of the reading it asks: "Would it help to reduce the human impact on the Earth id we could reduce the human population?" I think that if we were able to reduce the human population it would have a substantial impact on the impact we are having on the earth, with less people on the earth, there is less demand, waste and therefore the earth can balance things easier. But on the other side of the coin if there is less people on the earth then there are less people to do research into how to save the earth, and this is why I think it is important for countries that are not as economically stable as others to have more strict population rules and guidelines.

For the activity I watched the documentary "How food shapes our cities" by Carolyn Steel on one of the Ted talks. She spoke of how the large empires and cities of the past were able to feed themselves in a sustainable way, how the past civilizations were able to do this without damaging the earth. Now a days we are getting food grown, packaged and shipped all in the same place, thus not allowing for the variety that we once had. The foods that we all eat whether it be someone from Europe or Canada the food that we are eating these days is less nutritious and healthy than the food that we once ate. This makes very much sense to me in that I live by many Huderite colonies, and every so often we get the change to purchase or trade for some chicken, buns or other stuff. The food that we get from them is very good, it tastes much better than anything that you can get from the supermarket just because (at least I believe this is the reason) the food is grown in a much more natural way, the food isn't made in a plant, it is left to grow on the land, it takes and gives to the land as its ancestors did before it.

As of recently we have been talking about how the food gets to our tables, from the farmer, through the processor and packers, delivered and then I get it. I used to not think about my food. I knew that it came from basically factory farms and that the conditions in those farms were just the most disgusting things that you could ever walk in on. The thing about this class is that they not only present you with ideas and problems but they get you to think about what you can do to help the situations (Usually by showing what others have done before.) This really makes me think about how easy it looks to do something that while in the long run will benefit all that are surrounding the situation. That is how this class has gotten me to think about my food! In class we have blog reflections, these are them: When one is considering their food system, what do you like about it, dislike about it, all the while considering the taste, nutrition equity and environmental issues. I think that the best part of my diet is potatoes. Why potatoes you ask well because they are delicious, you can do next to anything with them, use them in every meal and they are a really good filler. These potatoes are not any regular potatoes either, these potatoes are potatoes that come off my uncle's farm, he grows them for the McCain factory in Portage La Prairie, and every year he invites us out to grab some to take home (also to give a hand as well) So out of everything and anything that is in my diet (even Slurpees!) I think that potatoes are the greatest and best thing that I can be eating, nutritionally, environmentally, and because they taste really good! The next reflection that was given to us was about zoos and how they play a role in the conservation and education of certain species. I think that it is a good idea that zoos are able to play a role in the conservation and education of the species that they house, the zoo is a great place for young and old alike to go and learn and experience what the animal should be like in its natural habitat (even if that means sleeping for 9/10ths of its life) so I do think that it is ethical to keep animals in zoos, at least zoos that are like the Winnipeg zoo. Where the animal is given a lot of room to roam and play, where there is a bit of cross species interaction and really the animal is being cared for not only physically but also mentally. This is one of the reasons that I enjoy going to the zoo, is because I can see that the animals are being well treated and they are there not only to entertain the masses but to also educate for their brothers and sisters that are still out in the wild. The final blog reflection was asking what I am doing to promote sustainability and happiness in my life, what I am not doing that I would like to do, and what I pledge to do. Currently it is quite simple what I am doing, when possible I don't travel. I don't buy things at stores unless I actually need them, I try to buy from local food markets and the such and as a family we compost and recycle everything that we can. I think that I lead a very sustainable life, I conserve what I can whenever I can and I work to get others to do the same. I cannot say that there is much more that I would like to do, as I don't see there much more that I can do, and I believe this is because when I see someone doing something that is sustainable or developmental to the regeneration of the earth I jump right in and do what I can to help, or I participate on my own.

Blog 2

In the first reading, "The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis", it talks about how the human race and religion have made it seem in such a way that humans are the dominators of the land, animals and all its inhabitants. This deep rooted ideology has created problems for mankind, when we look at the current ecological state and how we are working to restore it, but at the same time working with things that destroy it. It really shows that mankind has little to no idea what value and sustenance the environment has to offer. In one part it talks about how we have advanced in our farming methods, from a family owning enough land to sustain themselves, to a time where more advanced ploughs are used. But the new ploughs require more oxen to pull them, and so the land ownership developed to a point where the family with the most oxen owned the most land (as they could farm it all in the same time it took others) So we as humans had moved from a place where we lived alongside the environment to a time where we live on top of the environment, constantly demanding more of less and leaving more waste than it can handle. At the end of the reading it poses a question: "What is the 'purpose of nature?" I think that the purpose of nature is to (if we think of it as an object that we can observe) show us that it is possible to live without needing to leave things unused. That there is a way that you can create, use and dispose, things and still sustain yourself.

In the second reading, "A Sand Country Almanac", it talks about how there is a more deep meaning to what happens in nature, how (for instance) when we removed the wolves from most of the US, we thought that there would be more deer, and thus more game. Everyone would be happy and we would all win, well this was true for the first little while, the deer population soared and then the land started to suffer. The trees and low shrubbery were wiped out by the massive deer herds coming in and eating everything. The system has only started to recover from that impact because we have started to re-introduce the wolf population back to the land. Here lies Aldo Leopold's land ethic, an ethic that implies that the land is not something that is a resource to be used. But in fact it too is a living and breathing organism. The land ethic implies that the land should not be forgotten when decisions are being made, it too has a crucial part in the life and death of everything that it supports. At the end of the chapter it asks a question; "What is the basic lesson of Aldo Leopold's 'Thinking Like a Mountain'?" I think that the basic lesson of Aldo Leopold's essay is that although we think we will do something good for society and the land, we really need to stop and think deeper and realize all the different things that our decision will affect, and how it will affect them.

In the third reading "Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis" it speaks on how since the major industrial revolution, humans have been polluting the air and the earth. It talks about how since that time we have been getting worse and worse, and most unfortunately it is not on a linear scale, no it is more on an exponential curve. This greater amount of pollutants that the human race is outputting is showing no signs of slowing down. This reading was really an analysis of how certain elements and compounds are becoming more apparent in the atmosphere, and these compounds are not the greatest things to have hanging around in the air. The study then goes on to talk about how there has been recent disruptions in the climate "Climate Change" this study works to find and prove a correlation between the two. It even goes as far to predict the future of how the climate will be affected. At the end of the paper there are some critical thinking questions one of them is: "What consequences can we expect from global warming?" My answer to this is, that this can not be a set in stone answer, for all we know the ozone layer could deplete and the earth could be fried by incoming UV rays, there could be an increase in seismic activity or other natural disasters. There is only one thing for certain tho, if we do continue polluting as we do the earth and its activities are going to rapidly change.

In the fourth reading "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030" it talks about how the entire world uses power, how we are creating new technologies that need power, and how we are powering those technologies. The main problem with our current energy generation techniques are that they are already in place and it costs too much to implement new energy production plants. The reading talks about how there are WWS energies, Wind, Water and Solar. The current maximum energy production in the world is stated to be something around 12.5 Terawats, according to the U.S Energy Information Administration. With the creation of WWS and removal of fossil/nuclear energy sources the total energy output is something like 620TW (M. Jacobson, M. Delucchi) At the end of this reading it asks "Over the years, society has spent enormous amounts of money to build the current energy system. Why does this make it difficult to change to a new energy system?" I think the answer to this is, that we are used to what we have now, and it is working so why should we change it? This mentality of the public is what is keeping the current energy system in its  state of non-change. Sure over the years there have been modifications to the current methods but it has really stayed the same, this new path should be taken and made as a concern to the public, let them see why the new energy is the way to go. Make it simple for them, and the rest will come!

For the activity i watched the "Being a Caribou" documentary there was a couple that decided that they were going to go and follow the porcupine herd, and 'become a part of the pack'. The journey took them across the Canadian Yukon and into Alaska, 2343 miles on the road and 1500 KM on foot, just to raise awareness of the caribou herd that is going to be affected by the possible future drilling for oil in the north western part of Alaska's Artic National Wildlife Refuge. Once the duo got back to the capital of the US to tell their story, they were not accepted as they had hoped. They went and spoke to people at the capital and the story they told was just shrugged off. Now they are on a new trek, a trek to get the people of the US to care and know about the herd, to get the citizens of the US to lobby the government. My impressions of this documentary were that of interest, at first i was not too sure what was going on, other than that they were following the porcupine herd's migration to the calving grounds. The video did not quite strike a chord with me, as i didn't really grasp what they were doing until the later part of the video. It was an interesting documentary that is for certain, but not something that would motivate me to get into action over the fate of the herd. Now this is an older documentary (2004) and a lot has since changed, but the future of the caribou is never going to be set in stone.

This class over the past couple weeks has really opened my eyes to the sorts of things that people will do for a buck. The way that large oil operations are willing to avert attention from big oopsies to make their image look a little better in the public eye. This is going to be an interesting class in that i am interested to see how i will mentally develop in my opinions in different sides of all arguments. In class there were some blog reflections to go over, one was about the Albertan tar sands, and what sort of a future I'd like to see with them. Well my answer is kind of off topic, but i think it still applies in this instance. I would like to see the entire earth go WWS (Fourth reading) therefore not having much of a need for the oil sands, and thus we can leave them alone. Other oil platforms that are able to cheaply  extract and process oil can be used for the few lasting things that actually require oil and fossil fuels to run.

Blog 1

     In the first reading, “Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed” it talks about how societies of the past have failed and how they left behind only the things that once made them look mighty, the heads on Easter island, the great pyramids and the ancient temples the Mayans and Aztec people left behind. It looks at the reasons that these societies failed and it notes on the environmental effects that could have led to the demise. Also looking into the decisions that people could have made, what decisions were made and how we as a current societies need to look upon the past failures and learn from experience. We have choices and decisions to make and many will not be easy, but they need to be made or else we may just end up like one of the past great societies.. Great buildings and ruins that just hold a haunting beauty. At the end of this reading it asks; "Are societies that damage their environment doomed to collapse? Is ours?". My answer to this question is that of three parts; to what extent is the damage, how long the damage has happened (and the extent of the damage over that period) and what are the people doing about the current situation. If the damage done is so bad that not even with the current technologies they cannot even help the environment recover they are lost, if that damage has gone on at a high rate for a short period there is a strong chance that they can slow and turn around the damage done to their environment  If the people are doing nothing to help the environment then of course they will fail, resources will be depleted, land will be destroyed, water will be polluted and species will move away or die. And the final part of the question, "Is ours?" I think that we have a chance to slow the damage to an extent where we can work on getting a solution to our problem figured out, but we will never have the earth back to what it was once like. This optimism of mine can only show as long as there is actual progress in these areas. Because if someone is being pushed by a ball rolling down a hill, and they do not push back and yet expect the ball to return to the top of the hill.. well it just won't happen.

     In the second reading, "Human Carrying Capacity" it starts off about how the inhabitants population, on easter island were, growing in size and how they started to use up all of the resources on the island. Then suddenly there was a great decline in the population. The inhabitants started to fight (with themselves or others it is not known) but within the years 1722 and 1774 there was a great depletion in the population on the island. Thus started the idea of the human carrying capacity of the island. The inhabitants used the island for its resources until it could no longer provide for them and then the population crashed. They talk about how the easter island can be used as a micro model for the earth and its inhabitants  We are using resources at a much faster rate than they can regenerate, so when will our turn come to crash. When will the human carrying capacity of the earth fully show itself. At the end of the reading it poses a question, "In what sense does the Earth not have a single carrying capacity for human beings?" My answer to this is that how the usual carrying capacity works is, when an area of human occupation is no longer able to support the human populations. But in this day and age if we run out of resources or any other commodity we can just import it from another region or country. Thus the Earth does not have a single carrying capacity for humans but several, and the question that is being asked by some is, when will they all run out.

     In the third reading, " Tragedy of the Commons" it tells a story of two herdsmen each share a single pasture with each other and others. One day one of the herdsmen wants to be more profitable and so he wants to add an animal to his herd. So there are two parts to this, a positive and a negative. The positive is that the herder gets another animal and therefore more profit, the negative however is that that animal is now grazing on the pasture and so there is that bit less for the other animals to eat. This trend continues, the herdsman adding more and so the other herdsmen see him adding an animal and so they add more animals until the land is no longer producing for the animals. So the good that came from adding an animal to the pasture came with the ultimate demise of the shared pasture system. This idea can be applied to several other situations including those that go on in every day life, like pollution, consumerism, breeding, and working. (too much of a good thing can be bad) At the end of the text it asks: "Why should people not have as many children as possible?" I think that people should not have as many children as possible because the Earth is currently pretty full. The lives that us westerners live is not one to take for granted, the immense amount of resources that we use each and every day is beyond imagination. To bring more children into the world than it can currently support is not a good idea. I believe that each family should only bring into the world as many children as the number of parents in the relationship there are. This enables the human population to level off to a point where we as a species can figure out a way to live on this planet without 'driving it into the ground'.

     In David Suzuki's "The Sacred Balance - Gaia Hypothesis" it talks about how the Earth is a unique planet among the ones in our solar system, how the earth is the only one within the solar system that has the capabilities to support and drive life. James Lovelock (the chemist that David Suzuki spoke to) saw the earth as an entity and not an object, and he called that entity after a the Greek goddess Gaia, the mother of the earth. It then went on to show that the human race is using up the planets resources, the only planet around that can support life. We as humans have started to destroy the earth's processes that keep the life within it going. This video really made me think, it made me think about how we really don't see the destruction and erosion of the resources that we use but we know what we are doing, and yet we continue to spend and consume. The idea that we as humans can live with harmony with the environment is a great thing to envision, but with our current ways and consumption we will never be able to reach that ideal dream, we will continue down this mountain side into the darkness of the future.

     This class has so far been quite a class where i think, a class where i can wonder about what I as a human can do differently to make my own impact on the world. What i can do to help the environment recover, and not only the environment in my backyard, but the environment in every part of the world. It has been wondered what humans do that connect them to nature, or what makes humans feel more connected to nature. My thoughts on this is that its the essence of silence. The void of any human made noise, the airplanes that fly overhead, the cars that idle beside the road, the trains that rumble across the landscape. All of these things are noise, and when they are not present a human (lest I) can really get in touch with the 'inner self' and feel that connection to nature. When that silence is around i really see what nature has to offer and all its little working parts. And on the same note one can become disconnected from nature when they hear those sounds again, when they are brought back into the busy lives that they need to live to make way in the human world. A person can become disconnected from nature when they start to think about what they need to do to satisfy their human life, what needs to be done to drive the human life. If a person becomes too disconnected from nature they may not preform as they once did. They will be stuck wondering where their human life will lead them, where they will end up  And with this they have nothing to step back to and just relax, let the worries go away and not need to worry about anything, because they are in the lap of Gaea  Its been asked where my environmental ethics lie. I feel that the best ethic to follow is the Ecocentric, this is like the utopia for all ethics. The ecocentric ethic is where one feels that the integrity of the ecosystem must be held at high, if there is an invasive species them that species must be gotten rid of. Everything that the ecosystem held prior to human contact shall be held as the native species. Species that may try to wipe out other species within the ecosystem, they are important in one way or another. Just because we do not see the connection the destructive species has to the ecosystem, does not mean that there is not one.