Indigenous Resistance Response

            In English and History classes the culture of Native Americans is always told through a semi-true story.  Their land is usually invaded and leaves few or no original survivors.  The remaining Native Americans are forced into a lifestyle to which they are unaccustomed and influenced to forget their customs.  When they chose to remember, they are looked down upon as uneducated or less fortunate.  The act of flushing out a certain culture is assimilation.

            In the article, assimilation of the Salish people of the coast of British Columbia and Washington State is targeted in regards to education.  The previous generations of the Salish people dealt with even harder attempts of assimilation in public schools in hopes to make it easy for the following generations to keep the culture alive.  Assimilation in Public schools was a supposed mean to civilize the Salish children from a savage past.  Legislatures were established to separate the assimilated form the “true” indigenous Salish people. 

            The assimilation theory in my opinion is an excuse for the majority to retain power and influence above all.  Time and time again diversity, race, gender, sexual preference, and culture have proven to be great contributors to cognitive development and other skills and attributes that one is supposed to have to be successful.  With the treatment of these indigenous people came their want for their own communities, schools and sole ownership to their culture.  The majority rule in America understands the impact of diversity to personal growth so it is given to those who are chosen to be successful.  The indigenous people have their own communities and schools such as UNC Pembroke and are satisfied with living in their culture.  That being said they are satisfied with routine and unaccepting to new experiences.  New people are looked at as intruders because of the past invasions.  Even though we live in the same country the indigenous are still secluded to a world of their own where they are still regulated by the majority.

Meatrix Response

            “The Meatrix” is a laugh worthy spoof of the “The Matrix” that exploits the food industry, and gives a revolting truth about meat production.  “The Meatrix” sheds light on the disappointing transition of family owned farms to massive industrial farms.  When family farms were relevant, animals were bred and fed naturally, as well as treated humanely.  The transition of farms has and will continue to negatively affect farm owners financial status, consumer’s health, and of course animal treatment.

            In order to maximize profit industrial farms will do anything.  Industries create uncomfortable living conditions for animals in order to minimize space and maximize profit.  Also in efforts to maximize profit they abuse their workers by having them do strenuous tasks constantly at top speed.  In order to maximize supply the industrial farms inject growth hormones into the animals to make them bigger and expend more of their usable byproducts. 

The original video made a valid point of how looking at just the outside and not being educated about what’s within can mislead consumers.  The consumers have the power since they are the source of income for the industry.  If the consumer is educated about what products are healthy and who supplies a humane environment for the livestock, then the right decision about food consumption can be made.  The place of focus for my next assignment is somewhere in NY.  Since New York is up north, they don’t really have farms because of weather and land quality.  This gives reason to suspect the location as a major source for industrialized food products.  

Response to Biotechnology Article

The biotechnology article makes one think about food from the ethical, scientific, and economic standpoint of food production and consumption; not only from the aspect of everyday needs.  Food is consumed in large quantities daily causing the mistreatment and the deaths of animals.  Manufacturers produce food that makes for more profit and consumer satisfactory.  The food industry incorporates chemicals into the animal’s diet causing it to either grow larger for more supply, clone or reproduce more offspring, or even to reach certain tastes.  These chemicals create a miserable end to the animals life and disrupt natural order.  It is also an ethical and scientific concern in regards to what the chemicals do to the uneducated consumer and the rest of humanity.

Growing plants and food naturally requires time, commitment, and effort.  Producers that choose to use such chemicals for the sake of increasing profit lack those characteristics.  The producers also fear the competition or indirectly admit its lack of ability to compete fairly.  The producers do not deserve all the blame for this problem, though they do deserve most.  The consumers (humanity) encourage the producers and condone the method of satisfaction by continuing to buy and add to the ever growing profit. 

Greed of the consumer for more food than necessary as well as greed of the producer for more profit has led to an unethical, economically misshapen scientific method of food production.  To be sure there is a positive thing to do with such technology that benefits every aspect of sustainability.  Organizations and parties from both sides of the argument can come to a consensus on better means of production to satisfy majority of needs.

Response to Fracking Article

            In the article Abraham Lustgarten and Nicholas Kusnetz argue that underground contamination can be traced to Fracking, also known as hydraulic fracturing, as a result of drilling for oil supplies.  Hydraulic fracturing is defined as the forcing open of fissures in subterranean rocks by introducing liquid at high pressure, especially to extract oil or gas.  EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, would like to blame the oil and gas companies for the underground contamination in efforts to enforce stricter regulations.  The oil and gas companies of course do not accept the blame and insist to support that fracking is a totally safe and sufficient process.  That being said, who or what then is responsible for the contamination near Pavillion, WY.  EPA reports that the contamination came from gas wells and contained numerous compounds associated with fracking fluids.

            Many of the “that won’t happens” or risks of hydraulic fracturing have occurred.  The biggest concern was the contamination of water supplies.  An incident happened where fracking caused well water in an area to turn brown.  As a result of that gas companies provided drinking water to residents for a period of time.  If not at fault why be the 1^st to make such an uncommon friendly gesture?  Fracking is indeed a problem and can become even greater.  More incidents have occurred and if not stopped more will occur.  The gas companies should take blame for the incidents that have occurred and should continue to take blame if stricter regulations aren’t enforced.  Large companies like the oil and gas tycoons need to be reassured they aren’t above the law.  Accidents happen so why not prevent those that one has the power to before it all goes bad? 

In this picture of New York, the simplicity in life is exhibited by the means of transportation and the
landscape.  Horses attached to carriages do not emit greenhouse gases through exhaust pipes and such.  The natural land was not paved as one can tell by the exposed dirt.  Additionally the buildings are of simple structure.  There are no sky scrapers at ridiculous heights.
Then, life was simple and cheerful.  Now, life is regulated by automobile manufacturers and businesses with the largest buildings.  Although some automobile manufacturers are switching to more sufficient means of design, the industry has already left its detrimental mark on the environment.  As for skyscrapers, they are just an additional means of advertisement for businesses that can afford them.  The wealth of the world is unequal due to the visual misconception brought out by industries.  A new industry, or rather a business, is created and uses its "loans" and investments to construct a large facility; which in this day and time represents success.  In New York during the time this photo reflects, majority of the businesses are equal and adequate in size.  Business regulated in this manner gives no one business a deceitful advantage over another based on outward appearance.  Instead it allows the consumer to consider each store's merchandise for what its worth and not for the building's worth.

Religious Association to the Environment

Everything evolved from a natural source long ago is a non religious person's view on the environment. People of religion believe in a higher power that created a world that could sustain life and also be sustained by its inhabitants. The article linked chooses to state that certain religious factors, including some from Christianity, are the cause of ecological problems. The article says people believing in religions put dominion over the other which leaves them to disregard the earth. This I totally disagree with. From a Christian's perspective, the world is but a temporary home and gift from God to sustain and teach its inhabitants. Gifts or blessings from God are highly valued and appreciated. For a Christian to not care for a gift so powerful as to sustain life, it would be the utmost disrespect for God. Christian's aren't perfect to any extent and aren't all environmentalists. To do one’s own part in caring for the earth and environment does not take such a commitment. To say that the religious affiliated people are the cause of ecological problems is a terrible misconception. If anything religion gives people another reason or main reason to do the earth every ounce of good.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1386911

Response to Richard Kahn

            In this essay Richard Kahn discusses the effects of technocapitalism on everything.  Technocapitalism combines advanced technology with capitalism.  Previously written essays discuss how humans have left their unappealing stain on parts of the world whether theirs or not.  Old human civilization was acceptable for everyone’s and everything’s sustainability.  The current human idea, that has been in affect for centuries, suggests that globalization and becoming more technologically advanced is what’s best for civilization when in reality is a main factor in the downfall of civilization. 

            When pushing or supporting efforts of industrialization, effects of these decisions aren’t critically analyzed by the people.  Businesses who will economically benefit from these additions have the envirnomental consequences on their mind but rather have the dollar in their pocket.  Capitalism has caused humans to degrade their own habitat for the sake of adding landscapes or transferring economic power.  Currently natural resources are overused.  This contributes to capitalism, global warming by increasing the amount of carbon emissions, and in turn aids the extinction of civilization.   

                Civilization includes humanity as well as animals and the enviornment.  That being said, sustaining their life is something like a duty.  Hunting has always been a way humans have survived.  The difference between then and now is the vast increase in how much and of what, is hunted.  Essentially humans have disrupted the order of natural selection by exhibiting complete dominance.  This dominance can be atributed to human’s ability to create advanced technologies such as guns and traps to give them an unfair advantage.  For the sake of fastfood and other unnecesary satisfactions, hundreds of millions of farm animals, such as pigs, cows, and chickens, are brutally slaughtered.

                Technology has altered species’ abundance.  For example, Kahn talked about how fish nets are created with holes so small not even  baby fish could escape.  With humans reaction to child death versus adult murder, this should be viewed as a problem.  Animal deaths resulting from the tangling of larger sea animals in nets such as those is also an effect of this technology.  Vegeterians prove that you can survive without meat, but for those who can’t handle the drastic change in routine can support animal sustainibliity by hunting less or eating out less.  Something to think about as well is the penalty an animal faces for killing a human opposed to the penalty a human faces for killing an animal.  It’s unfair and leaves and unequal balance.   

                Animals are a vital part of human civilization and environmental sustainability.  Animal deaths occur largely from hunting but also come from accidents such as scientific experiments with unwelcoming outcomes.  Testing is needed but no side has the majority support.  By that I mean some people support using animals and some support any other method without harm to a living organism.

                Besides being detrimental to animals and the enviornment, capitalism and globalization have a negative impact on the impoverished humans.  Capitalism makes those in charge richer and sends the poor to rock bottom.  For example, McDonald’s is an outrageously rich corporation.  They have been able to create a cheaper menu over the years which is suppose to benefit poor people.  From a marketing stand point, when things ar cheap people buy.  Therefore if things are always cheap like McDonald’s dollar menu people will continuously buy from it.  If a poor person is continuously spending money that can’t be benificial to them, especially when it’s on unhealthy food. 

                Technocapitalism is detrimental to civilization.  According to Kahn, the UN Environment Programme expects maximum dammage to civilization if a change in regulation of our population doesn’t occur.  Civilization woud be better off if more advanced stopped being the answer, organisms stopped being absurdly destroyed, and humanity was served equally.  Anything can happen.

Police Protection

I've never been faced with this question so my response is from quick thought.  The police protect themselves of course, and maybe their partner if they're on good terms.  Also by protecting their partners they protect themselves from accussations about their harm or even worse death.  Moving along I believe they protect their immediate family as well.  Most police that I've heard speak before say they love everyone like their family.  If family is important enough to them to make a reference to then I believe family is second behind themselves.  Last I think are the citizens.  Citizens are hard to protect because judgement of who actually needs protecting can be altered by lies and deceit.  That being said I believe police protect themselves, family, and those who seem helpless or less offensive to them.  Their egos and personal experiences may also be factors in their decisions on who to protect.

Response on Colorado River

Jonathan Waterman took a journey along the Colorado River.  It is certainly at risk of drying up and has fallen victim to overuse.  On his journey his companion, Peter Mcbride, and he recorded as well as took photos of what they saw in hope to educate and inform the public of this situation.  Drought situations are sprouting up in many areas and if things continue to go unchanged our sources will be completely diminished.

Lake Mead was originally a beautiful attraction of the Colorado River.  Since the year 2000 it has had a drop of at least 100 feet in regards to water depth.  Farming as well as our changing climate are a couple of factors to blame for this disaster.  Farmers use many gallons of water from Lake Mead to water crops.  Our always changing climate hasn’t been good to Lake Mead.  It has received little precipitation.  It is also not getting much contribution from the overwhelmed Colorado River.  Southern Nevada has attempted to contribute by reducing there usage to 265000 acre feet and blocked a legislature Las Vegas was trying to pass in support of homeowners but detrimental to the lake.    

As in the essay of Ms. Postel, people have made a vibrant source of water defective because of lack of management and being too dependent upon it.  Lake Mead, as well as the Colorado River seem to have a lot on their plate. If they aren’t managed more efficiently then the plates and many more will break, leaving us with a mess which we can’t clean up.  If more water sources are discovered I propose we use them sparingly instead of excessively. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acHhD67I9yw&feature=player_embedded

Environmental Issue Leading to "Island Civilization"

The agriculture industry covers everything from crops to livestock.  Farming in regard to livestock is an environmental issue in several areas; making it a good reason to propose “Island Civilization.”  Along with this business comes a need for massive amounts of land and animals to exploit.  This aspect of the livestock sector has caused severe anthropogenic land degradation.  The agriculture industry calls for 30% of all inhabitable land.  Out of that 30, 70% of that land is used directly for the livestock sector.  Most of that land, which is arable, is used for grazing.  Grazing, feedcrops, and pastures are great factors in deforestation.  Because these animals need places to eat, sleep, and elope, there is cause for destruction of the already existing and inhabited forests.  When these forests are destroyed, along with the trees and other accommodations of nature go the habitat for, and the animals themselves.  This act of deforestation caused by the livestock sector brings about a deficit in that area’s, therefore the world’s biodiversity.  Biodiversity in an area shows how stable as well as creates stability for an area.  Another area the livestock sector helps devastate is the atmosphere.  About 18% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the livestock sector.  This percentage is even greater than that of the transport industry.  Along with the atmosphere our freshwater sources are affected by the livestock sector.  From this sector comes erosion and more detrimental, pollution.  The pollution and runoff comes from the waste of the farm animals.  There are ways the livestock industry could function efficiently and less detrimental to the environment.  That being said had humans lived with being content and let nature have its way, the land would be fairly distributed among species that were most suitable for the land.  We would have the fair chance to hunt as the animal predators don’t now; and the farm animals would have the fair chance to survive and not face certain death being livestock.  Other natural accommodations regarding to the water and atmosphere would have fallen into place as well.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1B9LQQkm_qMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP18&dq=environmental+issues&ots=LMW0jYcKnL&sig=d5yNABbX4wi5j_RZy-bArBPoTFA#v=onepage&q=environmental%20issues&f=false

Response to Nash Reading

In the reading, Professor Roderick Fraizer Nash is upset with how humans treated their chance on earth.  Because of this, he thinks change is in need.  He composed an essay citing the associated thoughts and common predictions of different philosophers, scientists, and environmental activists.  His aim was to prove humans negatively impacted the earth.  Taking over the earth, trying to expand and industrialize, was the worst decision ever.  To the naked eye it seemed the growth was for the better of mankind.  That it was, but mankind had neighbors who also occupied the earth.  Humans took over the already existing life forms’ habitat leaving them to become extent, scarce, or adapt.  The earth should be looked at as God’s gift to all life forms; therefore equality should have been the main rule of earth or the golden rule.  Not only the inhabitants but the earth itself should’ve been taken care of like the precious gift it is.  Industrialization isn’t the only way humans have devastated the earth.  The overpopulation of the species has added to the spillover onto the land of other natural life forms.  It increases the population density daily at an enormous rate.  So far humans have treated the earth as a possession that they did nothing to acquire and show no gratitude for its existence.  The concept that every life form has the right to function normally in a shared ecosystem was defined as deep ecology.  Professor Nash suggests that since humans couldn’t share, and took more than their share, then they should have a taste of their own medicine.  Not a punishment but an exhibit of their advanced intelligence.  He believes the population should be reduced down to ¼ and contained on islands in various parts of the world.  In these areas they can either create for the sake of survival and reestablishment, or live with the wilderness as they once did.  Humans have the right to fulfill their evolutionary potential but not at the expense of other life forms.  He feels if this is done it will prove better support for all life forms and the rehabilitation of earth.         

I understand and agree with a lot of the things Professor Nash inferred.  If you think about it, the earth lasted a long time in mint condition before the advanced humans came about with their uncontrollable urge to have more and more, of whatever they could have more of.  With nothing intervening, humans were allowed to do as they wish with already inhabited land as long as another human gave their consent.  Because other life forms are smaller or speaking a language humans can’t and care not to understand, except for entertainment purposes, they are stripped of their right to own property, sustain a stable habitat, or just live in general.  I do believe Humans are greedy and majority care about sustaining themselves whether or not at the expense of other life forms.  Professor Nash doesn’t think it’s necessary to resort back to the initial way of human life. He just thinks humans should be isolated, contained, and uninvolved with most of the earth.  I raise questions about how he suggests to cut the population down to 1/4 its current size without killing that would cause extreme chaos.  I also often wonder how and what would happen if a nuclear war broke out.  Every species to me would be dead or on the verge when considering the half-lives of the elements.  I don’t believe human isolation and containment is the solution to this obvious problem.  Like he said, with the intelligence level of humans nothing is certain but who’s to say it’s impossible.  I believe humans are capable to discover or invent a solution to each of their and other species’ problems.  Instead of reducing the population and instead of expanding, I think humans should create or discover endless supplements that can be used to repair and preserve the earth that we have left.  The job will not be easy or quick for that matter.  Therefore humans need lives to keep coming but at a slower, more controlled pace for the sake of passing down the collected data and ideas that will help find or create this supplement.  This will prove to be the key to a happy and long lasting preservation of earth and all its inhabitants.