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.