IN SPACE

It has been quite some time since my last post. I may or may not have broken my computer. My blog slipped my mind. Anyways, here is my post on space.

The group topic pertaining to space was very interesting to me. I did not really realize how much space we—as the dominant species on this planet—are using. Don’t get me wrong, I have understood that there are populations of people all over the world. What I didn’t realize was the fact that there are many things that can be done in order to decrease our overall impact on the world. I found it very interesting that a city that has large walkways instead of streets drastically decreases its carbon emission. I also thought that the idea of green spaces seemed like a wonderful thing (I know that they already exist but I think that there should be a push for even more green spaces on a global scale). I also really liked the idea of expanding in a vertical direction instead of a horizontal direction.

                Altering the layout of a city to contain a greater number of walking streets instead of large roads for automobile use is a great idea. This decreases the carbon emissions and our pollution in the world. This is an intrinsically good thing to do. Also, in doing so we are preparing for a better, cleaner (air quality) civilization for our future generations.

                Green spaces decrease the overall noise of a city; they also provide habitats for many species. This can be viewed as a good thing due to the fact that habitats are being created while increasing the overall happiness of a city (clean green recreational areas). I believe that the group actually said something about longer/better health for those living near green spaces, in terms of people living in a city.
                I feel like upward expansion is a type of development that would make most environmentalists happy. By building up instead of out, we are decreasing the amount of land consumed by humans thus decreasing the amounts of habitats destroyed and ecosystems disturbed. I feel like this could even be considered a better development style by deep ecologists. Obviously they will not be completely satisfied by this but it is better than a continued horizontal expansion.

Food food food

I found the presentation on foods to be very informative. I learned many new things about organic food and co-op’s that helped me to understand the importance of organic produce. Before the presentation I kind of just had the opinion that organic produce was way too expensive and not really worth the extra money. I did have the right idea about the price, since it is much more expensive. I do have my eyes open now though, I feel like organic produce is a great thing. The presentation did mention that it takes much more land to grow organically. It is for this reason that I believe it would be difficult to make a complete switch to organic foods. Pesticides and chemicals used to enhance growth are unhealthy as of right now. This leads me to believe that a switch to organic food would be worth my while. However, with global populations continuing to expand, I feel like it would be very hard to make a switch to entirely organic goods. They are definitely healthier, but they also require much more land (as previously stated). The land required for this type of agriculture will eventually need to be shared with the ever expanding populations of the world. This issue leads me to question what we will do in the future. I feel like there will come a time when researchers will need to find alternative sources for increasing yields and decreasing the amount of land required. In the case of fruits and vegetables, maybe scientists will find/develop fertilizers and chemicals (that are effective in increasing plant health) that will not be harmful to humans. In my opinion, agricultural science is an intriguing field of study that, in the decades to come, will have a significant role in the survival of our species on this planet.

The Grizz

The film Grizzly Man is one of my all time favorite documentaries. The main focus of the documentary is on the grizzly man (a.k.a Timothy Treadwell). This is somewhat saddening to me due to the fact that, according to friends, family, and video footage, Timothy's one goal in life was to save the bears (or to illustrate, through film, what he saw in bears). Timothy truly believed that behind the ferocious exterior of the bear, was a kind, caring companion. He was willing to do anything and everything he could to protect and save the animals he cared so deeply for. But was it the right thing to do? One could easily argue both ways. One could argue along the lines of, "Timothy did a marvelous thing by living with, and protecting the bears." Another argument, however, could be that Treadwell was doing harm to the bears by habituating them to the presence of humans. In his footage he also spoke of attempting to help the salmon swim upstream. I do not think that Treadwell fully understood how his actions could have been affecting the environment. He also speaks of his view of the so-called circle of life. Treadwell showed his lack of understanding of how the ecosystem actually worked by cursing at predators for taking prey. Predation was, is, and will continue to be a natural cause of death and possibly natures way of population control. Furthermore, what Treadwell failed to realize was that the animals that he loved most were predatory species. Both bears and foxes are predatory species. I feel like this illustrates his failure to understand the real way of life in the wild. I am not saying that he was not a great survivor and an experienced outdoor enthusiast. I am simply saying that Timothy Treadwell had a bias towards the animals which were closest to him. I do believe that his footage, along with Herzog's work have provided viewers with a rare glimpse of the beauty and the danger of Alaska's pristine wilderness.

Political Post

I have always been the kind of person that does everything they can to avoid getting involved with political discussions. I don’t know if I consider myself a democrat or a republican and I am completely fine with that because I have absolutely zero tolerance for the drama of politics, at least that is what I thought until we began our discussions on environmental politics. I did not realize the severity of decisions made by the government concerning land. For example, our class read a case study about Utah’s conflict with the Native Americans. The Native Americans want to allow for the disposal of dangerous wastes in their community. They accepted the offer without the consent of the rest of the state due to the fact that they live on the reservation. They were willing to take the toxic waste because the price was right and they are one of the poorest communities in America. The rest of the state of Utah is pissed off because they will not receive any of the benefits for the cost that they will be paying (what if something breaks during transport). The argument is valid but very hypocritical. Why would the Native Americans want to share the money—they so desperately need—when the state of Utah has not even attempted to aid the reservation. So Utah decided to make the area that the train would pass through a wildlife refuge or a protected area of some kind. This move eliminated the ability for the Natives to receive this toxic waste, which, in turn, cuts off the money supply that they so desperately needed. THIS is the kind of reason that I dislike politics. However, even though I despise political topics, I feel that they are sometimes necessary in order to preserve and protect various ecosystems throughout the world.

The Cove

I found the movie The Cove to be very interesting. I could not believe that the slaughtering of dolphins actually took place (and probably still does). Another thing that was so shocking was the fact that Japanese markets label the dolphin meat as whale so that people will purchase it for more money. It is crazy to think of what our country would be like if money were that important to our leading officials. I also find it funny that representatives made up “scientific” evidence showing that dolphins and whales are the cause of declining fish populations globally. It is almost comical that they say this when, in all reality, it is probably due to rise in human population and consumption of fish. They fail to realize (or don’t want to admit) that they are causing this change. They continue to blame declining populations on whales and dolphins. In my mind, if you are going to blame something else for something you are doing, you are suggesting that that species can distinguish right from wrong. If something is blamed, then does it have rights? I think so, if it were not accused of this would it not be just another fish in the sea? I think that people must not only realize that the slaughtering of dolphins is taking place on a daily basis. I think that, after they have realized this, they must take action and try to save them as they did with the whales. A failure to do so could end up eliminating an entire species from its ecosystem, leaving only memories in the zoo.

The Land Ethic.

I was 8 years old the first time I experienced what I thought to be a truly wild environment. I was in the boundary waters on Basswood. There was a very heavy wind, resulting in around 3 food waves (according to dad), and I was in a canoe with my dad. Now, I don’t know if you know anything about canoeing, but waves that size makes it a very bumpy ride. I seriously thought I was going to die (mind of an 8 year old). I didn’t die; we made it to a campsite and set up camp. I had the privilege of observing nature at its finest. I saw moose, deer, bears, eagles, fish, you name it. The most shocking thing I observed were eagles ripping apart the remains of fish that we had filleted and placed on a rock just across the lake.

This was the first time that I observed what my grandpa likes to call the circle of life. We caught the fish, killed the fish, consumed the fish, and disposed of the remains. The eagles proceeded to consume what was left of them. Now I know this isn’t the best example of the interconnectivity of the organisms coexisting within an ecosystem, but it should work. I witnessed, firsthand, the relationships between predators and prey. As Leopold says, “think like a mountain.” I could not have stated it better. The mountain sees the wolf preying upon deer, deer preying upon grass and seedlings. It knows the importance of each animal in it’s ecosystem. The idea that even the smallest changes to an ecosystem could result in drastic changes. An example of this is selective hunting. If the populations of whitetail deer in Minnesota were not managed how would the environment be altered? How many animals would starve?

Mining is another fantastic example of a drastic change in an environment, which, most likely, has detrimental effects on the inhabitants of the mining area. Leopold challenged the way we make environmental decisions by illustrating the fact that all aspects of a given habitat/environment must be taken into consideration before acting out human wants and needs. I Think that this is a fantastic idea and I pray that I will be able to view things in this fashion until the day that I die.

Save the Trees. :P

How I View Ethics

The type of ethics that best describes me is holistic ethics. This is not to say that I disagree with all of the other ethical viewpoints, but to stress the fact that holistic ethics is what I believe to be the decision making process that I use the most. I do not feel that humans should be the bases of all decisions. I feel that the moral responsibilities should be directed towards collections of individuals. The example of selective hunting in DesJardin’s book is great. That is, to say, that I agree with the idea of allowing game to be hunted so long as it is not risking the population (endangered species should not be hunted). I believe this to be a very safe, cost effective, way to maintain stable populations of various species. What I mean by stable populations is that, ecosystems have carrying capacities and some inhabitants may exceed that carrying capacity, putting the entire ecosystem at risk. Overpopulation would result in a shortage of food (the shortage of food can also be viewed as a declining population of a different species). Another example of a, somewhat horrifying, disturbance to an ecosystem (or a planet I suppose) is the human race. The human race is expanding rapidly. Throughout the expansion, humans have been and will continue to deplete the earth of resources such as natural gas, fresh water, and forests. At what point in time must we begin to consider such precious resources as these, as endangered or at a risk of extinction? When this idea progresses into a reality are we to begin managing/regulating the human population?

I feel that humans should not be the center of all ethical decisions. I personally think that environmental conservation efforts are a wonderful thing. I love traveling, some of my favorite places to travel are those which are least affected by anthropogenic factors. I feel that, holistic ethics can help us to avoid making decisions (probably not all of them) that can lead to such anthropogenic disturbances to the world.

Bio/first Blog Post

My name is Jake Denning. I am a senior at Saint John’s University in Collegeville Minnesota. I am studying biology. At this point in time I am unaware of what I will be doing after graduation. I recently applied for the Peace Corps and am hoping to have an interview by the end of the month. For some reason, the idea of spending 27 months in a foreign country speaking a different language is absolutely fascinating to me. If I am accepted I have requested to help with natural resource conservation (although, I would gladly do anything). I am hoping to study forestry after the Peace Corps. The more I think about my life, the more I realize that, in terms of a work environment, being outside is a necessity.

I am very excited to be enrolled in the environmental ethics course at CSBSJU. The reason I am enrolled in the class is to fulfill the ethics requirement for graduation. It is exciting for me due to the fact that I want to work in natural resource conservation. I feel that the class will lead to a better understanding of many environmental challenges existing today. I believe that being in the wilderness is perhaps the most rewarding experience that planet earth has to offer. I have witnessed this first hand canoeing in the Boundary Waters, and backpacking in the Grand Tetons and Swiss Alps, and exploring the redwood forest in California. These places are the reasons that I am so excited to take this class. It is important to preserve these wonders of the world, if I may call them wonders. I want to learn about the things that are threatening the environment so that I can do my part to help. I am eager to learn of other viewpoints on the issues that will be discussed in class.