Stolen Future

Reading - 

Ecosystems and Human Well-being 

All of us depend on Earth's ecosystems and services, humans have extensively remodeled these ecosystems to meet increasing demands of human greed. Three problems related to our management of the world's ecosystems are outlined that have caused harm, more prominently to the poor. 60% of the ecosystems are being degraded or used unsustainably. Second, "changes being made in ecosystems are increasing the likelihood of nonlinear changes in ecosystems,"(*) and third, this degradation has led to harmful effects being born disproportionately by the poor causing poverty and conflicts. There are two main drivers of ecosystem change will unlikely cease, climate change and excessive nutrient loading and "rural poor people, a primary target of the MDGs [UN Millennium Development Goals], tend to be most directly reliant on ecosystem services and most vulnerable to changes in those services,"(*). "The sound management of ecosystem services provides cost-effective opportunities for addressing multiple development goals in a synergistic manner,"(*) but it must be noted that even past progressive measures are minute compared to the growing pressure and demand. "An effective set of responses to ensure the sustainable management of ecosystems requires substantial changes in institutions and governance, economic policies and incentives, social and behavior factors, technology, and knowledge,"(*) meaning; integration in several sectors, transparency and accountability of the government - disabling perverse subsidies, in addition to incorporating nonmarket values of ecosystems and their services in management decisions. 

Four major findings are presented in the Summary for Decision-makers:

       1 -"Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth,"(*).

Land converted into cropland, loss of the world's coral reefs, the impoundment of water, cultural eutrophication, increasing atmospheric carbon concentration, conversion of biomes... We are fundamentally and to an extent irreversibly remodeling the diversity of life on Earth resulting in a significant loss in biodiversity.

       2 -"The changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems,"(*).

All forms of agriculture have been the mainstay of strategies for the development of countries. The gains have been achieved at a discernible cost.

       3 -"The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals,"(*).

They present scenarios that explore a set of futures, "most of the direct drivers of change in ecosystems currently remain constant or are growing in intensity in most ecosystems. In all four MA scenarios, the pressures on ecosystems are projected to continue to grow during the first half of this century. The most important direct drivers of change in ecosystems are habitat change, overexploitation, invasive alien species, pollution, and climate change," all synergistic direct drivers. And regions facing these repercussions are those in greatest environmental degradation. MDGs particularly dependent on sound ecosystem management: hunger, child mortality, and disease.

       4 -"The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA considered, but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices that are not currently under way. Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services,"(*).

It is important to keep in mind that even in scenarios that supports mitigation, biodiversity still continues to be lost, thus long-term measures of mitigation prove uncertain. "The scale of interventions that result in these positive outcomes are substantial and include significant investments in environmentally sound technology, active adaptive management, proactive action to address environmental problems before their full consequences are experienced, major investments in public goods, strong action to reduce socioeconomic disparities and eliminate poverty, and expanded capacity of people to manage ecosystems adaptively,"(*) in addition to addressing five indirect drivers of change: population change, change in economic activity, sociopolitical factors, cultural factors, and technological change. 

Why is it difficult to manage ecosystems sustainably?

Any global problems faces challenges far greater than expected, especially problems that have yet to be recognized as true or important by the majority of the world. The sustainable management of ecosystems is very much a work in progress but "there is no simple fix [the problems] arise from the interaction of many recognized challenges, including climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation, each of which is complex to address in its own right,"(*) a spectrum far greater than the knowledge of a common individual. An effective set of responses to ensure the sustainable management of ecosystems require substantial changes in: institutions and governance, economic policies and incentives, social and behavior factors, technology, and knowledge (*). And to no surprise, changing just one of these factors takes large quantities of time and effort, from many parties. "Significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices can mitigate many of the negative consequences of growing pressures on ecosystems, although the changes required are large and not currently under way. All provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services are projected to be in worse condition in 2050 than they are today,"(*) the issue of sustainable ecosystem management is not simple, even if changes are made today, the effects of our present existence are far greater than any mitigation strategies we strive for today. An effective set of responses to ensure the sustainable management of ecosystems must address the indirect and drivers just described and must overcome barriers related to(*): inappropriate institutional and governance arrangements, market failures, social and behavioral factors, underinvestment in efficient technology, and insufficient knowledge concerning ecosystems.

* citation for Ecosystems and Human Well-being by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 (S 10)

Living Downstream

"Unfamiliar many of us are with the notion that families share environments as well as chromosomes or with the concept that our genes work in communion with substances streaming in from the larger, ecological world. What runs in families does not necessarily run in blood,"(*) but the entirety of her family displayed different forms of cancer, and she, in fact had been diagnosed with bladder cancer. Bladder carcinogens are present as contaminants - "in cigarette smoke; added to rubber during vulcanization; formulated as dyes for cloth, leather, and paper; used in printing and color photography; and featured in the manufacture of certain pharmaceuticals and pesticides,"(*). "More than most malignancies, bladder cancer has provided researchers with a picture of the sequential genetic changes that unfold from initiation through promotion to progression, from precursor lesions to increasingly more aggressive tumors,"(*). Bladder cancer has most predominantly been attributed to cigarette smoking, but what about the others? Bladder carcinogens can be found in rivers, groundwater, dumpsites, and indoor air. Drivers of the cancer are trihalomethanes and tetrachloroethylene, but what about the risk of multiple trace exposures? Considerable interest is placed on the heredity of cancers rather than its environmental roots, but less than 10% of malignancies is attributed through inherited mutations; "when rare, inherited mutations play a role in the development of a particular cancer, environmental influences are inescapably involved as well. Genetic risks are not exclusive of environmental risks. Indeed, the direct consequence of some of these damaging mutations is that people become even more sensitive to environmental carcinogens,"(*). "We cannot change our ancestors. Shining the spotlight on inheritance focuses us on the one piece of the puzzle we can do absolutely nothing about..."(*). The legacy of Rachel Carson urged the recognition of an individual’s right to know about poisons introduced into their environment by others and the right of protection against them. The process of cancer exploration begins retrospectively for two reasons; many carcinogens are no longer produced but linger in the environment and human tissue and cancer is a multicausal disease and "to survey our present situation [we] require a human rights approach. Such an approach recognizes that the current system of regulating the use, release, and disposal of known and suspected carcinogens - rather than preventing their generation in the first place - is intolerable,"(*). "None of these 10,940 Americans will die quick, painless deaths [from environmental caused cancers]. They will be amputated, irradiated, and dosed with chemotherapy. They will expire privately in hospitals and hospices and be buried quietly. Photographs of their bodies will not appear in newspapers. We will not know who most of them are. Their anonymity, however, does not moderate violence. These deaths are a form of homicide," all activities with health consequences should be driven on the principle of the least toxic alternative "which presumes that toxic substances will not be used as long as there is another way of accomplishing the task,"(*). This principle will lead us to the availability of safer choices, making the release of chemical carcinogens as "unthinkable as the practice of slavery"(*) Steingraber states.

Why is it hard to tell whether—and how much—a chemical is carcinogenic in humans?

The performance of a carcinogen is unique to each individual even if it shares commonalities, it depends on familial and ecological roots; the proximity to carcinogen and the frequency of exposure to the carcinogen. "People are not uniformly vulnerable to effects of environmental carcinogens. Individuals with genetic predispositions, infants whose detoxifying mechanisms are not yet fully developed, and those with significant prior exposures may all be affected more profoundly,"(*) our bodies translate the effects of a carcinogen, dependent on its own living history which is in more ways than one different from every other living human on Earth.

* citation for Living Downstream by Sandra Steingraber (S 28)

Our Stolen Future 

Damage observed in lab animals and wildlife has foreshadowed what is increasingly becoming a reality to the human population. "At the same time that evolution experimented greatly with form, shaping the vessels in various and wondrous ways, it has strayed surprisingly little from an ancient recipe for life’s biochemical brew,"(*) we are more synonymous than we make ourselves believe. Our well-being stems from natural systems, a common evolutionary legacy shares by us and animals - the man-made landscape we live in today allows us to forget. "Our regrettable experience with persistent chemicals over the past half century has demonstrated the reality of this deep and complex interconnection... With this shared biology and shared contamination, there is little reason to expect that humans will in the long term have a separate fate," it is absurd to believe that humans are separate entities from everything else in the world. Unlike the incomplete knowledge of cancers, scientist understand the mechanisms and actions of hormones, how chemical messages are sent and received and the possible synthetic chemical disruptors of such connections. The linear understanding of dosages does not actually "conform to the assumptions that underlie classical toxicology—that a biological response always increases with dose. It means that testing with very high doses will miss some effects that would show up if the animals were given lower doses,"(*). Current animal hormone disruptors are very likely, and even currently are, threatening the human future. "The animal studies provide a touchstone for identifying and investigating what might be happening in humans. They can alert us to the probable kinds of disruptions and help focus research efforts. They can also provide early warnings about the hazards of current levels of contamination,"(*) it is unfortunate that these warnings are being ignored by a majority of the global population, we are in need to adequately and efficiently address the warnings before an unprecedented escalation of this event begins.

What effects are environmental hormone mimics known to have on animals?

"Transgenerational effects, such as changes in behavior and diminished fertility, are also likely to show up faster in wildlife because most animals mature and reproduce more quickly than humans," in most simple terms they produce defects. Defects in reproductive and immune systems, and large population declines, in mammals. Eggshell thinning, in birds. Altered sex organ development, forming abnormalities, being born male instead of female. Even displays of obesity and thinning, in a variety of animals.

* citation for Our Stolen Future by Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers(S 29)

Environmental Justice for All 

Activists stand up to corporations and demand government intervention - environmental activists for environmental justice. "In 1991, a new breed of environmental activists gathered in Washington D.C., to bring national attention to pollution problems threatening low-income and minority communities. Leaders introduced the concepts of environmental justice, protesting that Black, poor and working-class communities often received less environmental protection than White or more affluent communities,"(*) this indeed is was the first acknowledgement of inequitable environmental burdens. From the National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summits, to the National Black Environmental Justice Network launching its Healthy and Safe Communities Campaign, targeting lead poisoning and cancer. The environmental racism - any environmental policy, practice, or directive that negatively affects individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color - was introduced by the Warren County protesters whom were protesting against the illegal dumping of oil laced with highly toxic PCBs. This even led the "events in Warren County led the "United Church of Christ (UCC) Commission for Racial Justice to publish its landmark 1987 “Toxic Wastes and Race in the U.S.” report. The UCC study documented that three of every five Blacks live in communities with abandoned toxic waste sites,"(*). Environmental justice networks are being heard; from the win of the Citizens Against Toxic Exposure in Pensacola to Bill Clinton's 1994 Executive Order 12898, issued in response to "growing public concern and mounting scientific evidence" - "in attempt to address environmental justice within existing federal laws and regulations,"(*). So it does seem odd that three decades after the Clean Air Act the nation is become more lenient, opposite it is supposed to be, especially because of our current environmental tragedies. "Rolling back the Clean Air Act and allowing polluters to spew their toxic fumes into the air would spell bad news for asthma sufferers, poor people and people of color who are concentrated in the most polluted urban areas,"(*).

What is “environmental justice”?

Environmental justice is a civil right and if we want to achieve it "the environment in urban ghettos, barrios, rural “poverty pockets” and on reservations must be given the same protection as is provided to affluent suburbs. All communities - Black or White, rich or poor, urban or suburban - deserve to be protected from the ravages of pollution,"(*). It is the fair treatment of all with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies - as the US EPA dictates.

* citation for Environmental Justice for All by Robert D. Bullard (S 31)

Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services 

"Overall, rates of resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity. Restoration of biodiversity, in contrast, increased productivity fourfold and decreased variability by 21%, on average. We conclude that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean’s capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations,"(*) but it is said to still be reversible - it is important that mitigation measures are taken in the most timely and efficient way possible. Biodiversity is synonymous with ecosystems stability and productivity, stability from disturbances like flood control and waster detoxification - the loss of services like these can have disastrous consequences. The study was categorized in four sections:

       -Experiments: The results yield that "increased diversity of both primary producers and consumers enhanced all examined ecosystem processes,"(*) including: primary and secondary productivity, resource use, nutrient cycling, and ecosystem stability (measured by resistance to disturbance or recovery thereafter).

       -Coastal ecosystems: Results were precedented by the experiments; systems with higher regional species richness were more stable, in addition to "showing lower rates of collapse and extinction of commercially important fish and invertebrate taxa over time,"(*). Our historical patterns have indeed led us to our present depletion, collapse, and even extinction of many species. "Loss of filtering services contributed to declining water quality and the increasing occurrence of harmful algal blooms, fish kills, shellfish and beach closures, and oxygen depletion,"(*) and this is occurring in most water levels - with different intensities.

       -Large marine ecosystems: Fisheries have collapsed globally and the collapse is still in acceleration by anthropogenic pressures. And it is conclusive that "taxonomically related species play complementary functional roles in supporting fisheries productivity and recovery," another emphasis that biodiversity is extremely important to the life of ecosystems.

       -Marine reserves and fishery closures: These have be used in hopes to reverse the decline in of marine biodiversity, locally and regionally. "We found that reserves and fisheries closures showed increased species diversity of target and nontarget species, averaging a 23% increase in species richness,"(*) though the synonyms of biodiversity - resistance and recovery - has yet to be significant in most cases. 

       -Conclusions: Diversity and ecosystems functions are both directly and indirectly related, they state that the collapse of all taxa may be by 2048 if we follow our current trends. It to be noted that invasive species are also a marine issue, "our findings further suggest that the elimination of locally adapted populations and species not only impairs the ability of marine ecosystems to feed a growing human population but also sabotages their stability and recovery potential in a rapidly changing marine environment,"(*).

"By restoring marine biodiversity through sustainable fisheries management, pollution control, maintenance of essential habitats, and the creation of marine reserves, we can invest in the productivity and reliability of the goods and services that the ocean provides to humanity,"(*) in turn these measures would translate into extractive and nonextractive revenue. It remains possible to reverse our effects to an extent, we cannot afford to further extend our economy driven society, their "analyses suggest that business as usual would foreshadow serious threats to global food security, coastal water quality, and ecosystem stability, affecting current and future generations,"(*).

Why are commercial fisheries in decline?

The predicament of species-poor ecosystems is the main driver of decline in commercial fisheries, "changes in marine biodiversity are directly caused by exploitation, pollution, and habitat destruction, or indirectly through climate change and related perturbations of ocean biogeochemistry,"(*). These biodiversity losses are an effect of our unsustainable existence and  "although marine extinctions are only slowly uncovered at the global scale, regional ecosystems such as estuaries, coral reefs, and coastal and oceanic fish communities are rapidly losing populations, species, or entire functional groups,"(*).

* citation for by Boris Worm et al. (S 17)

Activity - 

Ted Talk: In Praise of Slowness by Carl Honore
*{watch here}

Honore claims that we live in a world stuck in fast-forward, obsessed with speed, where even instant gratification takes too long. A culture of speed, hurrying through our lives, instead of actually living them. He came upon an epiphany when he read newspaper article on a One-Minute Bedtime Story and found himself to discernibly support such an idea, he was living too fast and didn't have time to spare for his son's bedtime stories. "In the West, time is linear. It's a finite resource; it's always draining away. You either use it, or lose it... And I think what that does to us psychologically is it creates and equation. Time is scarce, so what do we do? Well, we speed it up,"(*). Then arises The Slow Movement which started in Italy under the proposition that "we get more pleasure and more health from our food when we cultivate, cook and consume it at a reasonable pace,"(*). Europe proves an example of such a complex they are finding that their quality of life increases as they work less, in addition to their hourly productivity going up, "more and more companies now are realizing that they need to allow their staff either to work fewer hours or just to unplug,"(*). On Honore's website most heartrending emails come from adolescents pleading for slowness from their parents, hoping to get odd the full-throttle treadmill they live on. Educational facilities are realizing even with homework less can be more. Students have CV's jammed with extracurriculars "but they lack spark; they lack the ability to think creatively and think outside - they don't know how to dream,"(*). So we ask ourselves, why is it hard to slow down? Speed is fun, it walls us off from deeper emotions, and in our society slow is a dirty word synonymous to being stupid. Yet people, people at the top of the chain, are "starting to realize that there's too much speed in the system, there's too much busyness, and it's time to find, or get back to that lost art of shifting gears,"(*).  His story ends happily as "over the last year or so, go in touch with my inner tortoise... and what that means is that I no longer overload myself gratuitously,"(*) slowness has the ability to make us happier, healthier, more productive than ever; forming deeper, richer, stronger relationships.

The culture came upon us like a massive yet unnoticed wave, and we just went along with it. There's a difference between the popular culture and the culture of speed, speed is a way of life; people gained that momentum and once they felt it, they never want to let it go. It gives you an edge to be better than others, and ultimately that is what every individual needs in order to categorize their success, or so we think. Like any societal event there are those few that are left out, the odd ones, the ones the wave didn't catch and the ones that simple crashed with the wave. I am proud to say I was the latter, in high school I was enrolled in the IB programme, quite rigorous but the point was that it reached a point where I didn't believe I could go on, not necessarily because low performance because my grades were quite high, but I simply just felt like I was falling. I kept repeating to myself, when I decided to progress with an Associates Diploma, that there's only so far a person can be pushed until they fall. I don't regret the "speed" I had beforehand, or the slow[er]ness I gained afterwards. I will never not be enthralled by speed, but I do believe in a balance of both, the successes gained from speed make you proud, and the slowness lets you enjoy that pride, it's a synergistic relationship for me. At different moments in my life I release my inner tortoise, but my inner tiger is never on a leash, I choose my speed based on how I feel, not on what society does. 

In-Class Blog Questions -

Ocean Plastics:

What are your primary concerns about the oceans? What, if anything, do you plan to do about it?

My four primary concerns regarding the oceans start with acidity, created by our on-going anthropogenic carbon emissions. The phytoplankton and zooplankton death due to stratospheric ozone depletion, these are the base of almost entirely all aquatic life, their disappearance would be accompanied by mass species endangerment. All-encompassing pollution and waste buildup, exemplified by the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Finally, rising sea levels which, amongst other impacts, will submerge coral reefs to eventually cause their death and the loss of their ecological services. Primary causes of CO2 emissions come from electricity production and transportation, I seldom use any form of automobile for daily transport and I already use electricity sparingly. I do not emit CFCs which destroy ozone molecules. Over 70% of my waste is recycled and the other is unfortunately disposed at a landfill; as a general rule I restrict the amount of waste I produce. As for rising sea levels, sharing the awareness of global warming and its effects on the Earth.

Anthropogenic Domination

Reading - 

Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization  

Food shortage creates severe stress on governments of countries already on the edge of chaos, potentially bringing down global civilization not just individual governments. "Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food economy - most important, falling water tables, eroding soils, and rising temperatures - forces me to conclude that such a collapse [of civilization] is possible,"(*). "In the 20th century the main threat to international security was superpower conflict; today it is failing states, the absence of power,"(*) - failing states are those where national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security, and basic social services - disintegrating order. "Once states fail, no one assumes responsibility for their debt to outside lenders. If enough states disintegrate, their fall will threaten the stability of global civilization itself,"(*). The surge in world grain prices, is shifting to momentary event-driven to long term trend-driven as population and industrial (ethanol) growth rises in conjunction with rising affluence. "The U.S., in a misguided effort to reduce its dependence on foreign oil by substituting grain-based fuels, is generating global food insecurity on a scale not see before,"(*). Water shortages are the biggest threat to global supply, having to do with inefficient irrigation; not all aquifers are replenishable, especially ancient, fossil, aquifers such as the U.S. Ogallala Aquifer. As water tables have fallen wheat crops and rice production has declined especially in China, and for countries with a precarious difference between consumption and survival, as in India, this is exponentially worrying. Loss of fertile soil - wind and water soil erosion from logging and rising surface temperatures, the green revolution is becoming increasingly inapplicable, "conventional plant-breeding techniques have already tapped most of the potential for raising crop yields,"(*) we have run out of both extensive and intensive agricultural measures. "Individual countries acting in their narrowly defined self-interest are actually worsening the plight of the many,"(*) to decrease domestic prices and increase profits. Import dependent countries are the most impacted grossing food-import anxiety bringing social disorder. These have started creating long-term bilateral trade agreements. "Since the current world food shortage is trend-driven, the environmental trends that cause it must be reversed,"(*) from plan A - a shift away from business - to a civilization-saving Plan B:

   -decrease net carbon emissions by raising energy efficiency and investing in renewables

   -ban deforestation and plant billions of trees

   -stabilize population, eliminate poverty by increasing education of women

   -restoring Earth's natural systems and resources, importantly conserving soils

The Plan seen for promoting development as long as it is cost friendly, humanitarian and politically correct but now a new vision arises, that it might be the only way to prevent our collapse. Effectively this plan is a yearly $200 billion, a sixth of the current military budget and its installment needs to be quick "the world is in a race between political tipping points and natural ones,"(*). It is nature that sets the deadlines and nature is its own timekeeper. And we human beings cannot see the clock (*).

According to Lester Brown, what is the greatest threat to global political stability?

In short; it is clear to Brown that food shortages will bring about global political instability. Countries have already started to mold their food boundaries to that of their own. Diminishing then mutually benefitting ties on an international level to work on their own domestic stability, yet "in spite of such stopgap measures, soaring food prices and spreading hunger in many other countries are beginning to break down the social order,"(*). Individuals suffering from hunger act in similar ways, they want to protect their own, not the society as a whole. This is what happens when people are driven to a condition of crisis, just as the countries contract, the people do so as well most likely bringing about different forms of social disorder - including political instability. How can there be a leader when there are no people that listen? "No country is immune to the effects of tightening food supplies, not even the U.S., the world’s breadbasket. If China turns to the world market for massive quantities of grain, as it has recently done for soybeans, it will have to buy from the U.S. For U.S. consumers, that would mean competing for the U.S. grain harvest with 1.3 billion Chinese consumers with fast-rising incomes,"(*) those who may benefit with an outward movement of food supply will try and most likely successfully exploit those measures as long as the supplier gains substantial profit.

* citation for Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization by Lester R. Brown (S 25)

Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation 

"Nature’s diversity is seen as not intrinsically valuable in itself, its value is conferred only through economic exploitation for commercial gain. This criterion of commercial value thus reduces diversity to a problem, a deficiency. Destruction of diversity and the creation of monocultures becomes an imperative for capitalist patriarchy,"(*) marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity are equated, man feels the need for power that is measured by what he is able to take. Diversity holds also the principle of women's work and knowledge. "Tribal and peasant societies’ biodiversity-based technologies, however, are seen as backward and primitive and are, therefore, displaced by ‘progressive’ technologies that destroy both diversity and people’s livelihoods,"(*) unless created by men in suits, the majority of native women's is unacknowledged. There is a widely accepted general misconception that diversity-based production systems are low-productivity systems - look at monocultures who create a positive feedback loop within their own existence. In conjunction with labour, sustainability is of natural resources and livelihoods; biodiversity conservation is linked with livelihood conservation. Nature's production costs and effort go unnoticed, just as for women; "these omissions arise not because too few women work, but too many women do too much work of too many different kinds,"(*). Women's invisibility is founded on the same fragmented and reductionist approach that treats natural resources as independent entities. "Women’s work and knowledge in agriculture is uniquely found in the spaces ‘in between’ the interstices of ‘sectors’, the invisible ecological flows between sectors, and it is through these linkages that ecological stability, sustainability and productivity under resourcescarce conditions are maintained,"(*). "Women have been seed custodians since time immemorial, and their knowledge and skills should be the basis of all crop-improvement strategies,"(*) however since it may not arise from labs and white coats it has been disregarded even though it is a systematically reliable way to conserve rich biodiversity. Corporations value nature through it raw materials, the value of seeds is based on its discontinuity, so that an increased amount can be sold and patented. Shiva claims that "patents and biotechnology contribute to a two-way theft. From Third World producers they steal biodiversity. From consumers everywhere they steal safe and healthy food,"(*).

What is an "ecofeminist"?

This article places an emphasis on the similarities between the conditions of natural biodiversity and women in our society. Claiming that "their experiences as women in male-dominated societies provides them with a different way of knowing and thinking about environmental issues,"(*) emphasizing on both of their invisibilities in our modern materialist and consumeristic society. "Women produce through biodiversity, whereas corporate scientists produce through uniformity,"(*) women believe in the intrinsic value of biodiversity, the essence of the seed is its continuity of life which is the complete opposite of corporations. An ecofeminist is one that sees the world through their own bodies, they have a more familiar understanding of ecological misconceptions rooting from their own conditions, therefore support the environment through their own native existence.

* citation for Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation by Vandana Shiva (S 37)

Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems 

"No ecosystem on Earth's surface is free of pervasive influence,"(*) human impacts have drastically increased in the last few decades. The authors explore "how large humanity looms as a presence on the globe,"(*). Our human enterprise has transformed land surfaces, altered biogeochemical cycles, and lost biodiversity. These changes bring aboard a further complication with its own entity, global climate change which is followed by irreversible losses. Land transformation has been the most substantial alteration as it interacts with all other aspects of the world, aquatic systems, atmosphere, and biosphere - it is also the primary cause of biodiversity loss. It leads an increased concentration of greenhouse gases, erosion decreases its fertility and pollutes surrounding waters. "Understanding land transformation is a difficult challenge; it requires integrating the social, economic, and cultural causes of land transformation with evaluations of its biophysical nature and consequences,"(*) this approach however, is essential to predicting its course and further physical alterations. The oceanic alterations are more difficult to quantify it is clear they remain substantial just as well. Over 50 % of coastal wetlands that mediate land and sea have been transformed or destroyed. Overharvesting fisheries have altered the negative feedback loop of predator-prey relationships. There has been an increased frequency, intensity, and duration of harmful algal blooms in coastal areas causing extensive production of toxins, fish kills and shellfish poisoning. There has been an explicit increase in atmospheric CO2, primarily due to extensive fossil fuel combustion, the land and ocean's ability to sequester carbon has also exponentially decreased. And as it "affects species differentially means that it is likely to drive substantial changes in the species composition and dynamics of all terrestrial ecosystems,"(*). "To meet increasing demands for the limited supply of fresh water, humanity has extensively altered river systems through diversions and impoundments,"(*) major watersheds have been depleted, such as the Aral Sea, promoting the loss of biota and increased salt concentrations. Water diversions for agriculture and electricity have indirectly begun to affect land biotic habitats, such as the Danube River dam. Alterations to the hydrological cycle can affects atmospheric and land conditions. Biological nitrogen fixation has decreased, this causes an increase in atmospheric increase in nitrous oxide, acid rain and photochemical smog - in addition to driving cultural eutrophication being increased by an increased release from agriculture. Synthetic organic chemicals have persisted in the environment as processes of biomagnification and accumulation ensue, a most commonly referred to example is DDT and PCBs. CFC's who are harmless in the troposphere contribute greatly to stratosphere ozone depletion, which causes a variety of serious health problems and environmental threats. Human modifications have exponentially increased loss of genetic variability, homogenizing Earth's biota. The disproportionate large mammal loss have caused "fundamental change in the dynamics of those systems,"(*). "Conservation efforts focused on individual endangered species have yielded some successes, they are expensive - and the protection or restoration of whole ecosystems often represents the most effective way to sustain genetic, population, and species diversity,"(*) so although they are successes they play a small part in the holistic solution. "In addition to extinction, humanity has caused a rearrangement of Earth’s biotic systems, through the mixing of floras and faunas that had long been isolated geographically,"(*) causing irreversible biological invasions, and international commerce is one of its main drivers, save for climate change. We need to decrease and stabilize our population numbers, and increase the understanding of Earth's ecological processes within our population. The "maintaining the diversity of “wild” species and the functioning of “wild” ecosystems will require increasing human involvement,"(*).

Would it help to reduce the human impact on the Earth if we could reduce the human population?

"We live on a human-dominated planet - and the momentum of human population growth, together with the imperative for further economic development in most of the world, ensures that our dominance will increase,"(*) this dominance will be the cause of our collapse if nothing is done. Not only is it a question of reducing human population, but reducing our affluent populations. A decrease in the Third World will only be a very minimal fraction of the impact in reducing affluent, western, numbers. "Reducing the rate of growth in human effects on Earth involves slowing human population growth and using resources as efficiently as is practical. Often it is the waste products and by-products of human activity that drive global environmental change,"(*) to meet increasing demands we are depleting the limited supply of natural resources. From aquatic systems to land, tigers to phytoplankton, to even more minute organisms. "Our activities are causing rapid, novel, and substantial changes to Earth’s ecosystems,"(*) so yes, reducing the population will reduce the human impact on Earth in the long-run however, it is important to note that even if we stopped all our activities our impacts will continues to resonate, the atmospheric carbon, the stratospheric CFC's, the radioactive waste, landfills, etc.

* citation for Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems by Peter M. Vitousek, Harold A. Mooney, and Jerry M. Melillo (S 9)

Activity - 

Ted Talk:  My Wish: Build the Encyclopedia of Life by E.O. Wilson

{watch here}

E.O. Wilson talks on behalf of his constituency - the million trillion small creatures that all of humanity would cease to exist without, to make a plea. This choice "is a culmination of a lifetime commitment,"(*) beginning from his childhood Coast of Alabama. Recognizing the little things that compose the foundation of our ecosystems, who run the world, he reach a strange yet lush frontier of biology "that it seemed as though it exists on another planet. In fact, we live on a mostly unexplored planet,"(*). New species continue to be discovered and diagnosed by scientists. Yet we still don't know what they are all doing, "we are living on a planet with a lot of activities, with reference to our living environment, done by faith and guess alone,"(*). Over 500 species of bacteria live symbiotically inside our bodies, responsible for prevent pathogenic bacteria infections. All of life combined is exceeded by the existing variety of genes on the planet. There have been advances changes with genomic technology, enabling us to "hunt bacteria in tiny crevices of the habitat's surface in the way you go watching of birds with binoculars,"(*). With unfortunate ingenuity and ceaseless energy we will destroy nature's masterpieces at the peril of our existence. Wilson had this metallic gold ant conservationist epiphany, he "realized that these species and a large part of the other unique, marvelous animals and plants on that island - and this is true of practically every part of the world - which took millions of years to evolve, are in the process of disappearing forever. And so it is everywhere one looks,"(*). He created the HIPPO juggernaut: habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution, population expansion, and over-harvesting. Our desperately incomplete knowledge of biodiversity we are at risk of losing more than we realize, we are "flying blind into our environmental future,"(*). Wilson states that "we need to have the biosphere properly explored so that we can understand and competently manage it,"(*). To strive and work together in the creation of the Encyclopedia of Life, a key tool to inspire the preservation of Earth's biodiversity. Having the improved science and technology of today, his wish it is to address transcendent qualities in the human consciousness and sense of human need, and to inspire a new generation of biologists.

This is conflicting, because on the one hand I believe that we should leave part of our world unexplored and rested - pristine, however if this research will leave nature unharmed and inspire initiatives to conserve and preserve ecosystems I would logically support it. Unfortunately, we all know such research explorations have the ability to hinder the organism's niche and ecosystems in its entirety. Thus, after some years, I still remain undecided. I do very much believe that people need form a bond, a kinship, with nature or simply the environment that surrounds them. As it should inspire them to respect each and every organisms that exists in addition to the abiotic environment, therefore fighting for its conservation, for their existence. However, I do recognize that there are people who have already found such kinship and will work ethically, in the most auspicious manner - in order to partake in the Encyclopedia of Life - that would further inspire conservation.

In-Class Blog Questions -

Food Systems:

Consider you food system; What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it? Consider taste, nutrition, cost, equity, and environmental issues.

Like- a wide variety of food is available at the local grocery store, my diet is vegetarian-focused and I am able to procure hearty plant based items (including legumes) swiftly, you are able to buy local foods which supports the domestic -more sustainable- production 

Dislike- organic and plant based foods may be a little more costly, as the grocery stores handle a wide variety of food a large fraction of that amount are inefficient, unhealthy, unsustainable, mass produced, and still sometimes costly food products - these products are also most consumed, therefore standard grocery stores and their consumers thus support an unsustainable, and sometimes unethical industry of commercial producers. In addition, the externalities cost are not include in the market price of such products, creating an imbalance in equity of all products, supporting consumers who purchase inefficient food items - the production of such items consists of a high variety of environmental issues concerning the use of pesticides, insecticides, tillage, factory farms, irrigation on desert land, unethical animal treatment as well as individuals from host countries of production, extensive fuel use, and many more.

Zoos:
What role, if any, should zoos play in conservation / education? Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos? If so, what size / type of animal or zoo? Do you enjoy visiting zoos?
Zoos should not be the first solution we conclude for conservation, however that may be, it is still a considerably useful tool especially in the coming years as habitat destruction increases. They should work as the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone Park did; provide rehabilitation for endangered species and release them once they are in safe numbers and health. And not to the extent that animals believe the zoo is their new environment, but more like a temporary safe house. If zoos were created for educational purposes then their model has certainly failed. We should not extract animals, especially endangered species, from their niche for our own purpose, that is simply unethical. Animals should not be caged in areas that may be over 90 percent smaller than their natural habitat. Because what education does that portray to children? That all animals exist and we can have them, or that animals should live in extremely confined spaces? Because I can assure you that the majority of children that visit zoos do not read the little paragraph panels of information by each cage, they just stare at the animal. If an adequate zoo should be created, it should focus on the quality and not the numbers. Less cages, larger more environmentally mimicked cages, and it should contain non-endangered species - unless they can properly care and rehabilitate species then they can hold endangered species, and the animal should not live for life in containment, released in the wild after a limited amount of years being kept in containment. After my child years, if I do visit zoos it is to inspire to get them out of those inadequate cages.

Affluenza:
What am I doing to promote sustainability and happiness in life? What would you like to do?
To promote sustainability my diet is green-based, very infrequently do I consume meats of any variation for ethical and rather logical reasons. I am especially aware of products that contain palm oil of any form, and do not consume them - reflecting an early lecture on Orangutans I listened to. I share knowledge on ecological ventures on social media and discuss them with others, who might have an opposite opinion. And I encourage friends and family to lead a green-based lifestyle; local foods, greens, recycling, reusing, and sharing knowledge and environmental opinions with their own group of people. Quite simply my happiness is more than Earth, it is nature - nothing more. I adore and have formed a fundamental bond with the environment, including beyond the boundaries of Earth. My mission statement is to inspire the appreciation of nature.

Ecological Entity & Human Endeavors

Reading-

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis

Judeo-Christianity is to blame for attitudes that have resulted in environmental degradation; the idea that nature serves man - paired with modern science developments and technology results in ecological crises as Professor White explains. The statement that "all forms of life modify their contexts,"(*) seems to be fairly underrated in our society; how one species, such as the coral polyp, can alter an entire ecosystem to invite a myriad of others, who all create an integral part of the world. Humankind has given this concept a rather opposite tone, transforming the environment into human artifact ecologies, remodeled ecosystems. The human system has embraced overenthusiastic hunting and exploitation: Neptune and Netherlanders combat which ironically resulted in their own loss in quality of life. White explores the ancestors of nature, though it is limitless he notes a significant 1850's union; that of the theoretical [natural sciences] and empirical [technology], from Western Europe and North America respectively. Followed by the Baconian creed "scientific knowledge means technological power over nature,"(*) a means of conquering. There are however differences between ecology alterations, of past and present human impacts, "with the population explosion, the carcinoma of planless urbanism, the now geological deposits of sewage and garbage, surely no create other than man has ever managed to foul its nest in such short order,"(*). The origins of "modern technology and modern science are distinctively Occidental...Western science is heir to all of sciences past,"(*). Scientific progress started before the stages of the 17th century Scientific Revolution or the 18th Century Industrial Revolution "from simple beginning, but with remarkable consistency of style, the West rapidly expanded its skills in the development of power machinery, labor-saving devices, and automation..."(*). In example of simple scratch-plow fields, from subsistence farming to a pool of oxen forming the capacity of a power machine to till the Earth. "What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply conditioned by beliefs about nature and destiny--that is religion,"(*) this is the nature of our present impacts as the human species. Greco-Roman mythology didn't believe in a beginning whereas Judeo-Christians beliefs were rooted in a concept of time as nonrepetitive and linear and "no item in the physical creation [of God] has any purpose save to serve man's purposes"(*), establishing a dualism of man and nature. In the Latin West by the early 13th century natural theology ceased to decode the physical symbols of God's communication with man and was becoming the effort to understand God's mind by discovering how his creation operates. As such, scientist like Leibnitz, Newton, and disputably Galileo explained their motivations in religious terms, rather than scientific. If modern science is an extrapolation of natural theology and modern technology is derived from the Christian dogma, Christianity then, bears a huge burden of guilt from human exploitation of nature. "The whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and the ethos of the West,"(*) prompting that we are not, in our hearts, part of natural processes, we are superior. Saint Francis of Assisi, is the radical of Christian history whose head did not end on a stake. He believed in the virtue of humility for man as a species, implicitly articulating that Christ served as an incarnation and portrayal of cosmic humility. He also proposed what is known as the "doctrine of the animal soul," or rather explicitly the pan-psychism of all things animate and inanimate. Technology and sciences originated from the Western medieval world deeply grounded in the Christian dogma, any discoveries in both those realms has since further expressed the thought of orthodox Christian arrogance towards nature. "No new set of basic values has been accepted in our society to displace those of Christianity. Hence we shall continue to have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man," (*) White is an advocate of re-establishing renewed roots to our way of life and of thinking; he states that "what we do about ecology depends on our ideas of the man-nature relationship. More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one," (*) that of Christianity, as for it is to blame for our crisis.

What makes Saint Francis an appropriate candidate for the position of patron saint of ecology?

A patron saint of ecology is a protecting and guiding saint for the integrity of nature and its ecosystems. Saint Francis created a democracy of God's creatures, species as brothers and sisters. It was said that Gubbio in the Apennines was being ravaged by a fierce wolf, Saint Francis then talked to the wolf and persuaded him in the error of his ways, the wolf then repented (*), the Saint had the radical thought, which he profoundly believed and advocated for, that nature and everything it beholds has a distinct conscious, just as every other human. "His view of nature and of man rested on a unique sort of pan-psychism of all things animate and inanimate, designed for the glorification of their transcendent Creator, who, in the ultimate gesture of cosmic humility, assumed flesh, lay helpless in manger, and hung dying on a scaffold,"the betrayal of the Creator to his own, not only did he place superiority on one species, humans, he disregarded the magnificence of the others, who have prevailed and shown their own importance, thus the Creator's humility.  Saint Francis was the first to imply that was some sublime disregard in religion, though he was a believer, he was not a follower of the common norm of religion at that time, enabling him to reflect on the Creator. Though he did fail, "he tried to substitute the idea of the equality of all creatures, including man, for the idea of man's limitless rule of creation,"(*) and this deserves recognition, especially at his time, of a patron saint of ecology. "The profoundly religious, but heretical, sense of the primitive Franciscans for the spiritual autonomy of all parts of nature may point a direction,"(*).

* citation for The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis by Lynn White, Jr (S 6)

A Sand County Almanac [excerpt]

"Behind these obvious and immediate hopes and fears there lies a deeper meaning, known only to the mountain itself. Only the mountain has lived long enough to listen objectively to the howl of a wolf,"(*) Aldo Leopold introduces this perspective within Thinking Like a Mountain. During an outing on a high rimrock he encountered a "welcoming melee of wagging tails and playful maulings"(*), a pack of wolves. With excitement the lead was released from the rifle onto an old wolf, and shortly thereafter she was down. "We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce green fire dying in her eyes...something only known to her and to the mountain,"(*) it is this fire that Leopold felt resonate through his body and has since been able to reflect on the true attitude of his society, where it was thought that less wolves would result in a deer hunters paradise. Since that moment the abundance of wolfless mountains has grown, grazing deer have destroyed their own habitat, slowly and ceaselessly, significantly in the whole realm ecosystems. As the deer herd feared the wolves, the mountains live in mortal fear of the buck (*); for the mountains replenishment is no less than the time of several decades. Leopold states the thought that too much immediate safety only seems to yield danger in the long run. "An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct,"(*) an ethic is mergence of both, a "co-operative mechanisms with an ethical content,"(*). It is indeed an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity to extend the lines of ethics to the element of human-environment. A land ethic is a mode of guidance for our ecology endeavors and human-environment kinship, it enlarges the boundaries of the 'community concept' to entail all of the biotic and abiotic.  He says, "it is inconceivable to me that an ethical relation to land can exist without love, respect, and admiration for land, and a high regard for its value. By value, I of course mean something far broader than mere economic value; I mean value in the philosophical sense,"(*) man has been isolated and continues to be separated from the integrity of the ecological system, it is vital for man to have an understanding ecology and further a comprehension of land, above its economic values. It is quite a simple logical concept that seems to take absurd amount of effort to be acknowledged and followed by the people. "The mechanism of operation is the same for any ethic: social approbation for right actions: social disapproval for wrong actions. By and large, our present problem is one of attitudes and implements,"(*).

What is the basic lesson of Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain"?

"Leopold reflects on his early enthusiasm for killing wolves as indicative of human ignorance about the ecological interdependence that sustains a mountain ecosystem,"(*) this indeed is the departing fierce green fire in the eyes of the nearly departed old wolf which resonated within himself, penetrating his thoughts. "I was young then, and full of trigger-itch; I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves would mean hunters’ paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the mountain agreed with such a view,"(*) far too often is it allowed in our society to let people go about their lives doing things without knowing its history, value, or even its repercussions. We grow into these thoughts presented as the norm of life, and we spent so little time questioning where they come from and if they truly are so important, especially being so neglecting of nature's presence. In our young years, little or no time is devoted to truly appreciating the environment and everything its realm beholds, a grave mistake. "The cowman who cleans his range of wolves does not realize that he is taking over the wolf’s job of trimming the herd to fit the range. He has not learned to think like a mountain. Hence we have dustbowls, and rivers washing the future into the sea,"(*) it is seldom perceived among men that nature has existed long before their introduction, yet we enable ourselves to act superior to it, a great tragedy.

* citation for A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold (S 4)

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis 

The United Nations Environment Programme paired with the World Meteorological Organization to establish the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to assess scientific, technical, and socioeconomic information regarding greenhouse gas-induced climate change, a report was released. An anthropogenic increase has been observed in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel and land use, in addition to methane and nitrous oxide as an output from agricultural activities. "The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming,"(*) with positive radiative forcing. Negative radiative forces of aerosols are feeble to its positive counterparts from several sources including solar irradiance and those categorized under greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, and tropospheric ozone. Remote sensing and proxy measurements provide evidence that the "warming of the climate system is unequivocal,"(*); eleven of the last twelve years are amongst the twelve warmest years on record, increased water vapour content in the atmosphere, increased ocean temperature, declining glaciers and snow cover, including ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns in intensity and frequency (droughts, heat waves, cyclones, etc). Changes in the precedent are "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"(*) is is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past fifty years can be explained without external forces,"(*) discernibly human. Climate models have revealed that "surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations is likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C,"(*). "For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES [the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios] emission scenarios,"(*). According to model experiments it is very likely that even if greenhouse gases and aerosols would be held at a low constant, global temperature would rise by 1°C per decade, due to the persistence of these existing infrared absorbing gases. If current trends persist global warming model-based projections observe an exponentially increase, not exclusive of its already damaging consequences. Enhancing ocean acidification, extra-tropical storms, in addition to the slowing down in the meridional overturning circulation of the Atlantic Ocean and virtual complete elimination of the Greenland ice sheet, increasing future sea level rise. "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere,"(*); it is with very high confidence that climate change has been anthropogenic, and that its continuing impacts of global warming will further harm all biotic existence and alter the abiotic natural formations.

What consequences can we expect from global warming?
-Increased global average of air and ocean temperatures
-Melting of the cryosphere, including permafrost which releases a powerful dose of methane
-Rising global average sea level (submergence of coastal areas)
-Increased ocean salinity
-Ocean acidification
-Extreme weather patterns including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, and intensity of natural disasters (i.e. tropical cyclones, wildfires)
-Increased surface warming
-Reduced land and water intake of greenhouse gases
-The meridional overturning circulation of the Atlantic Ocean will slow down
-Extensive expansion of tropical diseases
-Intensification of current allergies and illnesses
-Ecosystem shifts
-Disappearance of coral reefs
-Loss of biodiversity [massive extinctions]
-Decreased soil fertility and efficiency (crop failures)
-Biotic ecological refugees 

* citation for Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (S 23)

A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 

For the climate leaders meeting in Copenhagen the most effecting step to cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions is a significant shift away from fossil fuels, to clean renewable energy. Unlike Al Gore, Jacobson and Deluchi modeled a plan for all energy to be supplied by wind, water and solar [WWS] resources, by as early as 2030. "Millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations,"(*). The feasibility and deadline of this project depends on the technology chosen, the availability of materials, as well as the much conflicted economic and political factors. Based on clean "technologies that work or are close to working today on a large scale, rather than those that may exist 20 or 30 years from now,"(*) considering only those that have near-zero emissions of pollutants, from its production and usage to its afterlife; no significant waste disposal or terrorism risks. Revamping transportation, heating, and industry systems to renewed electric systems, fuel-cells, and electrolysis. "If, however, the planet were powered entirely by [efficiently allocated] WWS, with no fossil-fuel or biomass combustion, an intriguing savings would occur,"(*) electrification seems to generate an ample amount of energy supply as its sources hold an immense amount of untapped potential. 9 percent by water-related methods, 51 percent would come from 3.8 million large turbines, and 40 percent from photovoltaics and concentrated solar plants. Using already placed hydroelectric stations, wind bases, and solar operations. They note that these additional sources would only occupy about 1 percent of Earth's land. On its opposite, a larger demand for coal would produce much more harmful effects, and it wouldn't be a long-term solution. It is with the rare materials where we'll encounter hurdles, such as the neodymium used in turbine gearboxes, however a shift towards gear-less turbines is seen in the future. Tellurium, indium, and silver contained in photovoltaic cells will prove to be reused from older cells, and we will shift to cells with high efficiency and minimal rare material content. We encounter a bigger problem with lithium and platinum, for vehicle ion batteries and fuel cells, respectively, as it is estimated that there does not exist enough recoverable amounts of these materials for the extent to which we need them. The WWS system will need reliable and resilient infrastructure; it is known that the energy sources can be highly variable. "Interconnecting geographically dispersed sources backing up one another, installing smart electric meters in homes that automatically recharge electric vehicles when demand is low and building facilities that store power for later use,"(*) paired with efficient infrastructure, including an energy grid, mutes the precedent variability. They state; "the mix of WWS sources in our plan can reliably supply the residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sectors,"(*). As the WWS energy realm will expand and become cost-competitive,  it will become as "cheap as coal,"(*) ridding us of an old, dirty, and inefficient energy system. "In the interim, however, certain forms of WWS power will be significantly more costly than fossil power. Some combination of WWS subsidies and carbon taxes would thus be needed for a time. A feed-in tariff program to cover the difference between generation cost and wholesale electricity prices is especially effective at scaling-up new technologies"(*), these will be phased out as incentives grow. Nationwide investments in a robust, long-distance transmission systems will be crucial. "A large-scale wind, water and solar energy system can reliably supply the world’s needs, significantly benefiting climate, air quality, water quality, ecology and energy security"... only if "clear leadership is [present], or else nations will keep trying technologies promoted by industries rather than vetted by scientists,"(*).

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?

As with any investment the news of inefficiency is a very problematic. For the industries that rule our economic system, some would even go as far as plainly saying our society, these problems aren't beneficial when they are dealt with. The WWS is a threat to them, it is the exchange of power and there is absolutely no multinational economic industry out there that is willing to give out power, thus losing their beloved profits no matter how scarce they may become. As with any entity power is always better when it stays within, because today power is livelihood [which to add, is a very unhealthy and addictive one sided relationship]. We hold power most treasured for the belief that it makes us a 'best' individual, or entity, quite a tragic and faulty conjectures.

Convincing a mere few of these industries to completely divest into the WWS system will be enough to quite nearly fund the entire system, so it isn't a problem of money or even of resources. Power is the enemy and it is the driving force of difficulty in changing to a new energy system. "Clear leadership is needed, or else nations will keep trying technologies promoted by industries rather than vetted by scientists,"(*) everything is set, the system just needs the backing of 'brave' divesting fossil fuel industries. Now we wait, and wait some more.

* citation for A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030 by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi (S 13)

Activity-

Ted Talk: Transition to a World Without Oil by Rob Hopkins
*{watch here}

Basing our idea of economic growth and success, our whole life around oil. "Our degree of oil dependency is our degree of vulnerability,"(*) we will not be able to depend on it forever. This creates scrambling extractions of oil, from Alberta tar sands, or the depths of the ocean. We have to design a creative way back down the other, sustainable, side; an important transition. IPCC models have been more than reached and we are in need of "deep and urgent decarbonization." Our story will become of a "generation that lived at the top of the mountain, partied so hard, and abused its inheritance. Three continuum ideas exist; first business as usual, second hitting a wall, and last impossible dream; technology can solve everything "invent our way out,"(*). Energy and technology is not the same thing. The Hopkins places grand significance on his program of "The Transition Response" as self-reflecting concept that creative humans can take part of, finding envious resilience more than sustainability. Transition projects emerge from several group of people, each unique to their own locations; local food projects, community owned [renewable] energy companies, education, garden-share, local value money etc. An energy decent plan, embracing the loss of energy and finding a way to sustain ourselves without it. Engaging with the local government to create transitional authorities, further expanding to organization funding and support. "So the question I'd like to leave you with, really, is - for all aspects of the things that your community needs in order to thrive, how can it be done it such a way that drastically reduces its carbon emission, while also building resilience?"(*).
We claim to be innovative, constantly evolving ways of thought and improving ourselves, thus the significant question of why are still so dependent on oil [and other fossil fuels] shouldn't really be a question in the first place, given the precedent. For some ideal our consumption society keeps effortlessly trying to pin us back; our worth is that of the oil we consume. And it has me pondering, it is the multinational industries keeping up locked in the realm, or are we there by free will? Are we scared to say our goodbyes to our first innovative sources of energy, those that have, quite literally, driven us to be the economic success we personally are today in the Westernised world? "And by loving and leaving all that oil has done for us, and that the Oil Age has done for us, we are able to then begin the creation of a world which is more resilient, more nourishing, and in which, we find ourselves fitter, more skilled and more connected to each other,"(*); the idea that all oil innovations should be shamed is a misconception that I've been guilty of. It is acceptable to feel lucky, even happy about our early oil ventures. Though it still remains inappropriate to support the oil exploitation of today. It is time to move away from fossil fuels, and if the mass industries won't help, it has to start locally, as Hopkins previously proposed. And as the small eco-friendly communities expand, so will their sustainable way of being, which will eventually reach these industries, if for no other motivation than profit, will realise fossil fuel isn't even their own solution anymore.

In-Class Blog Questions-

Parks and Protected Areas:

Can parks meet its dual mandate of access and protection? How can this be achieved in Wapusk?

It is highly proclaimed that a symbiosis between access and protection of a park exists, and candidly, this is wrong. The term pareto efficiency comes to mind—where you cannot make one better without leaving the other impaired—it is immaculately suited to the issue of access and protection. I envision the graph of a production possibility curve of some sorts; moving along the y-axis protection increases, and along the x-axis access, keeping in mind that a movement along the x-axis bears a higher opportunity cost [decrease in protection]. It is most certainly plausible to have intermediate access paired with less than adequate protection, today's parks epitomize—case and point. If protection is not the main emphasis of a park's plan, it is surely a guarantee that significant protection of the parks ecological systems will not be adequately preserved; especially at a time when the consequences of climate change are proven to be quite significantly damaging. Therefore, as these consequences increase in intensity and frequency the point along the curve must, respective to the increase of the precedent, move along the y-axis. For any proper dual mandate to exist, it must follow that path; there is no perfect "half-half" middle point. In any case, minimal human disturbance—such as tourism—is irrefutably best to preserve the integrity of the ecological systems the park beholds. It seems that the Wapusk National Park of Manitoba has been progressive towards protection when it comes to its management, but perhaps the will for access has been expressed. Considering what has been said, rightfully they shouldn't change much of the practices however, if access need be granted it should remain remote. The park is known to have a variety of remote research and observing locations and as long as those stay as such—remote—visitations may perhaps increase. Wapusk is a grand and pristine area of wilderness that shall no succumb to the exploitation of man.

Tar Sands Investigated:

What future would you like to see for the Alberta Tar Sand project? Continue current path? Stop development entirely? Some modified continuation?

It would be a fantasy to think that this development could be halted entirely, for future plans it is important to be realistic, environmental remediation no different. I am most surely against the extreme of continuing down our current path, explicitly thinking, it has absolutely no benefits, to the environment, economy, or even us—save for some immediate short-term effects, such as employment, even that is a fairly large stretch to call it a "benefit". When it comes to energy use, I've observed that it is most important to focus on renewables—it is necessary to state that dams are not included—as such progress will eventually promote the phasing out of fossil fuels. The development of renewables will in fact provide the claims fossil fuel production seem to erroneously state for themselves; long-term national economic benefit, safe production, employment... Above that renewable projects certainly will not run the environmental risks its opposite does, in fact it will work to promote minimal disturbance of ecosystems, which is far from remodeling and shifting entire ecological systems.  Meanwhile on its opposite it is crucial to demand minimal continuation in projects such as the Alberta Tar Sands, industries like these end their development simply because it is demanded by the majority of the public, as it is obvious today. However, we can rally the support of higher chains of command that will be able to limit their projects and set stricter laws and regulations on its degrading advance. In the future, I do hope that any further exploitation of the planet's resources for fossil fuels will be prohibited by all industries, even those with purely economic agendas.

From Critical Thinking to a Human's Perspective

Reading-

Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed 
Though defining collapse is an arbitrary phenomena, it stands by a "drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time,"(*). We observe past societies in hope to find solutions applicable to our modern world, yet it is naive believe that this is in fact possible. Our processes of environmental damage may be quite similar, the exploitation of Earth's finite resources ["deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems (erosion, salinisation, and soil fertility losses), water management problems, overhunting, overfishing, effects of introduced species on native species, human population growth, and increased per capita impact of people." now "human-caused climate change, build-up of toxic chemicals in the environment, energy shortages, and full human utilization of Earth's photosynthetic capacity,"(*)], but our society today follows an even more convoluted path. We dwell on the mysteries which lie behind monumental ruins, we believe in the might of the society which left it behind, yet we forget this abandonment was forged by a collapse perhaps paired with environmental damage, an unintended ecocide of sorts. Diamond shares a framework he has created of contributing factors to collapse; first environmental damage linked with the respective environment's fragility or resilience. Second, climate change, not exclusive to global warming, the good and bad decades of climate have led to the rise and fall of societies. Third, hostile neighbours, where lies the curiosity of what has weakened whom, providing the example of: the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, did the barbarians improve themselves or their tactics or was Rome weakened by some social or environmental factor? Fourth, friendly trade partners, or lack thereof, where societies may be weakened through high interdependence of one another (*). Finally, the last factor which Diamond notes always proves significant, in comparison to the others, society's responses to its environmental problems, dependent of the political, economic, and social institutions and cultural values present in the area. He defines and contrasts environmentalist, who know current environmental problems are serious and should be attended to immediately. And non-environmentalists who adhere to big business and economics (*). Diamond has encountered different opinions for his work/relations with big businesses, even so he says "my view is that, if environmentalists aren't willing to engage with big businesses, which are among the most powerful forces in the modern world, it won't be possible to solve the world's environmental problems,"(*)...

Are societies that damage their environment doomed to collapse? Is ours?
"Of course it's not true that all societies are doomed to collapse because of environmental damage: in the past some societies did while others didn't; the real question is why only some societies proved fragile, and what distinguished those that collapsed from those that didn't,"(*) and the simple answer is their societal responses to environmental problems. Collapses have never been known to be solely attributed to environmental damage. We are capable of preventing our collapse, as the past societies of the Icelanders and Tikopia Islanders have done and now continue to live on. The Icelanders adopted rigorous measures of environmental protection and the Tikopia Islanders micromanaged resources and regulated their population growth. No more can we view the environment as a separate entity from us, it is illogical to think that our actions will forever by sustained by the environment. In the past "a society that was depleting its environmental resources could absorb the losses as long as the climate was benign,"(*) the climate is no more benign, the repercussions of our unsustainable and inexplicable actions have radiated all throughout the globe, reaching extremes. We do have the potential, the knowledge and technology now that allows no room for excuses, our collapse is in fact our choice whether the people decide to acknowledge it or not. But the quicker they do, the faster we can shift our societal view to one that benefits the environment, and if they need another reason, this view will be one that benefits them just as well.
* citation for Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond (S 38)

Human Carrying Capacity 
Beginning with the case study of Easter Island, the most isolated island and the island that was home to the civilization that "undercut their own ecological foundations"(*). There exists credible archaeological and historical data evidence that suggest downfalls such as exploitation of resources, introduction of invasive species, alongside the, once precious, abandoned moai--giant statues. The human population experienced a severe exponential increase followed by an expected steep fall and a slow gradual recovery. Professor Cohen mentions Paul Bahn a writer and archeologist and John Flenley an ecologist and geographer who synthesized a model of Easter Island and the story of its collapse, though most is hypothesis it reflects what did in fact occur (*). Including: deforestation, famine, warfare, collapse of civilization, and population decline (*). Most importantly, they proposed this statement, open to an everlasting lush realm of thoughts, "we consider that Easter Island was a microcosm which provides a model for the whole planet,"(*). Cohen follows the case study by questioning the verisimilitude of "carrying capacity" and what it beholds "a number or range of numbers, presented as a constraint independent of human choices, is an inadequate answer to the question [of how many people can the Earth support]"(*). "If human choices somehow failed to prevent population size from approaching absolute upper limits, then gradually worsening conditions for human and other life on Earth would first prompt and eventually enforce human choices to stop such an approach,"(*) choices and constraints are concepts that are chained together when it comes to the concept of carrying capacity, one does not exist without the other. Cohen emphasizes on the difficulty of creating an intelligible, yet complicated and credible model of carrying capacity, listing a growing list of factors that need to be accounted for. "Estimates of the Earth's human carrying capacity are conditional on the current choices and on natural constraints, all of which may change as time passes,"(*). Cohen then addresses equilibrium equating each state to human positions: supine passive equilibrium (lying), constant control equilibrium (standing), sustained motion equilibrium (walking), simplification and control of the environment steady equilibrium (running). Respectively, from before we created fire to a basic mastery of the environment (fire, agriculture...), and cultivation (social, mental, physical), finally, our machine driven society. "There is no choice but to try to control the direction, speed, risks, duration and purposes of our falling forward,"(*).
What is "carrying capacity"?
A number that does not exist. It would be wrong to say it is a concept that we can simply calculate and make a model of, at best it would just be a result of parameterization--the process of defining a set of data necessary for a relevant specification of a model. As a number it is incomprehensible, "if an absolute numerical upper limit to human numbers on the Earth exists, it lies beyond the bounds that human beings would willingly tolerate,"(*) yet as a concept it is highly relevant and pertinent to our society. "The constraints on the Earth's human carrying capacity are just as real as the wide range of choices within those boundaries,"(*) even if carrying capacity could be perfectly defined it would constantly be changing due to human choices, and the magnitude of their impacts on the Earth. "This view of estimates of human carrying capacity as conditional and changing differs sharply from a common view that there is no one right number for all time,"(*) acknowledging the concept of carrying capacity that it is applicable to our society is an important step to adequately deciding and allocating our choices in order to act for a sustainable environment. Carrying capacity is a framework to present our severe negative impacts on Earth, it is a tool for environmentalist support and a leading mechanism for those uneducated people to understand the repercussions of our living.

* citation for Human Carrying Capacity by Joel E. Cohen (S 35)

Tragedy of the Commons 
"I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win"...every way in which I "win" involves abandonment of the game,"(*) tragedy of the commons is an inevitable game of ruins, we fool ourselves by neglecting its existence in order to go on with our worry-free lives. People simply want "avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy,"(*) and that we all know isn't truly possible, consequences will be given. The concept of Adam Smith's invisible hand, that individuals work on their own interests to benefit a community, and as the following exemplifies, with our society, that isn't possible either. Professor Hardin explores the development of tragedy itself and the event of tragedy of the commons: there is pasture to raise cattle, reasonable growth because leveling of population (beast and man), followed by social stability which increased potential of gains, leading to unsustainable use of resources (extensive land grazing), and the conclusion is, "freedom in a commons brings ruin to all,"(*) it's the ability to deny the truth as the society suffers. "Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his heard without limit- in a world that is limited," we would require constant refreshed education to unbind humans from this system, yet at best even now man displays no more than ambivalent understanding. We also suffer from a philosophy of the commons in preaching to the freedom of the seas and the inexhaustible resources of the oceans, even though logically we know that is hardly true. We devalue the commons (ex. National Parks) through overpopulation of humans, constant popularity visitations and lack of true appreciation for the commons brings about ruins of its intrinsic essence. Pollution tragedy is a consequence of population also, individuals from our society are "locked into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as independently,"(*). The concept of private property is laughable, there are no barriers to environmental consequences, there is no equal or even just distributions of punishment, we are desperate for progressive environmental protection actions. "To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action,"(*) this unfortunately is pursued and promoted. To openly deny the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is environmental progress of a kind. Harding accentuates the self-limiting ability of the conscience. Those who behold one will be outrun by those reckless people who don't. He introduced coercion by stating "the only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected,"(*) we unavoidably use "coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons" and it needn't be enjoyable, just preferable. It may be an unjust legal system, but for now there exists nothing superior. "The commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density," something we lost a long time ago, when we welcomed abandonment of the commons and restrictions on food gathering, waste disposal, even the idea of pleasure (sound)... We accept and pursue the abandoning of the commons in the act of breeding itself, in least we have to try a build a society with a proper conscience with help from responsible parenthood, and we need to ensure the education of this concept. "The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an increase in anxiety in the short," (*).
List some examples of resources held in common by all the citizens of society that have suffered by overuse:
-Forests
-Oceans (including ocean garbage gyres)
-Greenlands
-Tundras
-Coastal estuaries
-Corals
-Any species other than humans (including microorganisms)
-Minerals and nutrients
-Biogeochemical cycles
-Earth's atmosphere (air pollution & ozone depletion)
-Earth's cryosphere
-Earth's photosynthetic ability
-Earth's albedo
-Earth's biodiversity and resilience
-Roads and modes of transportation

* citation for Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin (S 7)

Activity-

Ted Talk: A Wide-Angle View of Fragile Earth by Yann Arthus-Bertrand
{watch here}
Mr. Arthus-Bertrand artistically explores our impacts on the planet, listing the exploitation of the Alberta tar sands oil, the destruction of corals and sea biodiversity, the North Pole melt, Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its ice, over-exploitation of the fish stock, the 50 000 sqft of deforestation per year, and the event environmental refugees. 1/6th of our people don't have enough to eat... In Africa corn is the main produce, here in America we use corn for livestock feed and oil. Arthus-Bertrand explores the "voice of people" through his project Six Billion Others, asking questions about life (to most, family is their answer). "We don't want to believe what we know", our resources are finite and even so, they are exploited. He screens a teaser of his film Home {watch here: English or French} which encompasses our journey on earth, from members to conquerors, from sustainable exploration to exponential exploitation, our society is growing at a faster pace than Earth can sustain. "It's too late to be pessimistic," we can all be part of a solution.
It comes to no surprise that people have actively decided to ignore a global problem, the over-exploitation of Earth's finite resources, they are choosing not to acknowledge what can quite possibly bring an end to human life. Moreover we are extremely inefficient in using the resources we do exploit, making our faults even greater than we can imagine. We destroy magnificent unique creations of Earth that we cannot replicate no matter how much we may try, these geobiochemical cycles in all forms and everything it encompasses in its realm are priceless and are essential to our survival. The absence of human appreciation of nature is what I surmise to be the reason for such exponential damage to our environment. Not enough of us know what is happening to the environment and how severe the consequences are, to us and to every species out there that we may not even know exist. We indirectly control the survival of any species out there, through habitat destruction and fragmentation, over-exploitation, and human population growth; inclusive to our actions which led to climate change and the impacts of climate change itself (sea level rise, depletion of the soil matrix, destruction of coral reefs, depletion of freshwater, altered wind currents, rain cycles, and geography of climates, increased frequency and severity of environmental disasters, loss of biodiversity...). "Our environment doesn't have borders. Wherever we are, our actions have repercussions on the whole Earth,"(Home film) we need to redirect our visions towards aid for the environment.

In-Class Blog Reflections-

Critical Thinking:

How does the media do in each of their areas [of the critical thinking criteria]?

Clarity varies across the realms of the media, it's rather dependent on the network through which the respective media piece is portrayed. How they present the piece may also be dependent on their own interests, if for example they aren't particularly agreeing with the true importance of the piece they may not make an effort to share it with clarity. 

With accuracy, as members of a distant public of certain media pieces we hope that the media is true and factually correct. However that may be, there have certainly been instances where it hasn't been so, varying from one slight fact being incorrect to substantial inaccuracy in the respective piece. This is linked to where they receive their information from, and whether their source is credible or not; this is highly influential to the accuracy of it. In some cases, inaccuracy may also be linked to the biases of the source, they may be on the opposing side of an issue.

Precision is rather variant in media, as it is dependent on the importance of the media piece and how much time and effort the media is willing to spend. Importance is sometimes inconsistent amongst different media and its outlets, as is time and effort. A local issue may receive more media precision than it would outside of the local lines, as the local media is willing to spend more time and effort because of the piece's local importance. However, if something alarming happened locally, it may, almost, evenly spread across state lines with approximately consistent precision.

The lines of relevance are somewhat blurred in our society due to the effects of the 'popular culture' phenomena. Some part of a media piece may be classified as quite irrelevant but may still receive screen time because of its popular culture aspect. However, most credible and highly regarded media sources deal with relevance rather adequately.

Bias is an influencing quality that is ultimately found in the entirety of the Critical Thinking Criteria when it comes to media and it most prominently resides in breadth. Like clarity, it is highly dependent on the network through which the media piece is presented. Certain networks are known for holding a certain bias, whether it is on a political stance or otherwise, they uphold a point of view that respects their own interests thus sometimes exposing a tunnel vision mindedness. Yet there certainly exists networks that are capable and willing of providing, at least, adequate breadth.

Depth relies grandly on the urgency or popular relevance of the media piece. It will be presented with an amount of depth that respectively matches its societal importance. For example, an event that has caused a country, or even global uproar will receive an effective dose of depth, whereas an event deemed rather small by the public will not be presented with a depth as large as the precedent. 

With a credible media source the area of logic should most likely be adequate, if not better. As a member of the media public I would like to believe that a media piece written illogically would not be published as so and would be reviewed until it is adequate to be presented to a public. And if an illogical media piece would be screened I would think a low count of views and/or acknowledgment would amount to how inadequate it was.

Connect/Disconnect:

What promotes human connection to nature?
Nature itself is a wondrous creation which is so incredibly easy to get lost in, the act of purely looking at an area of greenery, a mountain, a river ...can forge a connection between a human and the environment which for some is an unbreakable magnificent bond. Being introduced to knowledge of the environment in an educational form can for some initiate a newfound respect, interest, and passion for nature. Though I've always had respect for the environment and enjoyed the beauty of nature, being taught and educated of its works by my high school environmental studies teacher nature has made it become part of my life and I look upon it with my highest regards. I also believe that sheer appreciation of life, and all of its existent forms, can form a connection to nature and everything that resides within its realm.

What promotes disconnection from nature?
Most prominently, the simple answer would be technology. It is important to note that technology does possess the potential to promote a connection, however in our current society it does more harm. The invasion of the popular culture phenomena has created people who are insensible and careless about things that are not "popular" nor hold the popular standard. Unfortunately, nature and the environment are as of now not particularly popular. When seeing a news piece or photographs of disasters and serious damage that have occurred to our environment, on any kind of media outlet, it has allowed people to be distant from the issue as it is not in front of them but rather on an electronic object. The extent of the urban sprawl and the infrastructure that comes from it has also desensitized individuals from nature, as they cannot find a proper view of it, it has been replaced with skyscrapers, houses, roads... This has also led people to prefer cities to a lush nature, a disconnection.

Is there a danger to a growing disconnect from nature?
Yes isn't a strong enough word to answer this question, we've already been part of this concept of dangers for a long while, whether it be as an observer or as member of it. In our society we could say that businessman/industries are an exquisite example of a disconnect from nature that has led to dangers. From excessive unsustainable agriculture, to extensive unsustainable extraction of oil and natural gas, and unsustainable inefficient energy use; all also encompassing endless amounts of unethical decisions. The societal focus has always been profits, money and as much of it that could possibly gained. In other words, exploitation of the environment and even the people, and as much of it that is considered "ethical" and "legal" in its respective areas. This monetary tunnel vision has only grown exponentially, as have the dangers it has created to our environment. It seems that some people have forgotten the saying "everything is well in moderation," nature has not received a single drop of time to recover from our faults and yet, we effortlessly keep destroying it. Regrettably, we exploit, we destroy, we kill, with no retribution whatsoever, these people are not being punished, or punished nearly enough, for the harm they have caused to our nature. As this commercialized, industrial society grows, so will the dangers and their magnitude of severity, reaching an environmental tipping point.

Environmental Ethics:
Where do your environmental ethics lie? Anthropocentric? Bio-centric? Eco-centric?
I've never been aware of my passion for nature until a few years back, although I am confident it did reside within me and I just needed to find it somehow, before this time I surmise my views shifted between all three centers. As my passion for nature and what it beholds has become increasingly fervid I rest conflicted between my eco-centrism and bio-centrism, backed by a deep ecologist view. I believe in the equity of all living and non-living forms, and the importance in the integrity of ecological system, I am an ecobio-centrist. The idea that in order to support the wholesome integrity of ecological systems you have to devalue each single organism to me is jarring. A system's connections and functions cannot exist without each living and non-living form it is home to. Each single parts function together to form a whole, a functioning self-sufficient system, one cannot be without the other. I believe that humans have overstepped the boundaries ever since the Industrial Revolution, giving birth to an infinity more of careless acts towards the environment. The day we started to value ourselves more than any other life form is the day we became conquerors, unjust dictators of our own worlds. We've received no consequences, no, we've given them to third world countries who have done nothing to deserve it, much less to have to deal with our faults. I live to embrace nature's intrinsic value in all of its forms, to value and appreciate its magnificent richness and diversity, and to implement changes in human interference of this world.