Week Eleven---Which way Forward? .....

"We plan to bring out innovative tailor-made cells for diseases" ...What implications do you see in this approach? ....One concern that comes to mind (besides the zillion ethical concerns I have) is that the correlation between lifestyle choice and health will be further diluted, if not negated entirely for some. We live in an industrial society. We have industrial diseases---diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, liver disease .....all diseases that are directly influenced by diet and other lifestyle choices, such as stress management or physical activity levels. It blows my mind that many people do not see the connection between good health and lifestyle, or worse, disregard them for "tomorrow." I will start eating healthier foods tomorrow. Tomorrow, I will walk the two flights of stairs to my office. Next week, if it is sunny, I will start riding my bike that one mile to work. I feel sick today, but if I am not better tomorrow, then tomorrow I will take it easy. Being someone who makes conscious choices in regards to my own health and well-being, I can not help but hold others responsible for their own (if it is within their means, of course)....and I realize that I do have to reign myself in sometimes from being overly critical or judgmental. One issue within our culture is choice---we have too many choices. And time---we never have enough time. Overall quality of life is squandered for immediate pleasure ....and in the future, if we have the option to grow ourselves a new liver---why not have a couple of gin and tonics every night until then? There are of course many people who suffer from unfortunate diseases that are beyond their control; thinking about the option of growing "tailor-made cells" for them takes on a different tone for me. Clearly, stem cell technology is a huge issue, and it is our future, whether we agree with it or not. The article we read in class just screamed "infomercial" to me---stem cell technology is big business. An industry. Perhaps a cottage industry that will develop the "cures" for the industrial ills of our society. We are still treating the symptoms and not the problems.

Would you expect "carbon offsets" to work effectively? ....No---carbon offsets are not a solution for carbon emissions. They are merely a salve for our environmental guilts. I think that adding a "carbon surcharge" to the cost of an airline ticket is a better solution---this money would be invested in the development of improved flying technologies that had lower carbon emissions. Given the number of people who take flights everyday, the cost could be very reasonable; and too, the cost should be low enough that flying should not become cost prohibitive ....(or should it?)

Do you agree with "Laughter really is the best medicine"?....The opening line of the article says, "It might be regarded as a statement of the obvious. But scientists have proved what everyone else takes for granted - that laughter is good for you." This statement is interesting to me. It suggests that what most everyone feels, knows in their bodies, hearts and minds---that laughter is healing---can only be "taken for granted" until "proven by scientists." Well folks, the proof is in ....and I think the scientists may be laughing. On their way to the bank. Do we really need to be spending money on this kind of "research" ...?

Week Ten---Restoring the American Bison to its Rightful Range ....

How would you prioritize the reintroduction of the American Bison? ....The American Bison holds a deep, sacred symbolism for many Native Americans and their supporters. The restoration of the American Bison to its "rightful range" symbolizes a return to a more harmonious relationship with Nature, the land and its vast population of different animal and plant species. A bit of a reminiscence, or longing, for the past. But it is more than that. Restoring the American bison population feels like an attempt to right catastrophic wrongs in our American history, to heal cultural wounds. And while there is a certain nobility in this venture, I do wonder if the honest sentiments of many involved in the project may be ultimately exploited by those seeking economic gains. Its is quoted in our readings (PBS) that "selling bison meat has become a $650 million industry -- one that many Native Americans are eager to join ..." Is the restoration of the American Bison to its "rightful range" a capitalistic venture or are monies intended to benefit the Native American community as a whole, and equally? ...Is the American Bison meat industry going to raise each and every one of these animals humanely?---thus honoring the bison with the love and respect that is central to this restoration project? The nobility of the Native Americans of the past is invoked---they engaged in sacred hunting, killing only what they needed to survive, and in turn, used each and every part of the animal ....is the American Bison meat industry going to be so noble? ....This is only one side of things. The greater intentions of restoring the American Bison have more to do with restoring Native American communities and their belief systems ....however, I do have concerns that these very sentiments may easily be exploited by hungry, opportunistic souls and that we may, in some ways, have a repeat of history.

"Child cancer risk higher in richer rural families" ....I am always suspicious about such reports. One must always consider their sources---who funded and conducted the study? No study is ever truly objective, and such reports are only a slice of the bigger picture. This particular report suggests that child cancer risks are higher for those who live in more isolated communities which, for the particular communities cited in this article, also mean economically richer communities. The writer of this article suggests that having less contact with others at an early age significantly reduces a child's exposure to potential bacteria and viruses, thus possibly leading to a higher cancer risk. To me, it seems like there is a lot of speculation going on. While there are many medical experts jockeying the idea that some cancers are caused by viruses, the real fact is---we do not know with any certainty at this time. This is one theory of many. One thing in particular that stands out to me in this article is the downplay of other environmental factors, such as radiation, in childhood cancers. Is it not a known fact that radiation can cause cancer, yet this article cites that it "plays a small role" ...? Hmmm.

Week Nine---Ecosystems and Deep Ecology ....

What do you think of the "eight-point Deep Ecology Platform"? ....On paper, it is a beautiful set of ideals, but ideals are not meant to be realized, but rather, give us direction. I consider myself someone who is concerned about the well-being of the environment. I also carry around a bit of irrational guilt for being part of the race of beings, humans, who have tinkered too too much with our environment, tweaking it to fulfill immediate "needs" while disregarding the bigger picture. Once upon a time, we did not know any better ....but now we do. As humans, are we headed for self-destruction? This seems to be the case. But only a race of beings that longs to live forever, literally trampling the ground beneath its feet (our planet) in a race to 'live fully', would ever conceive of something called "self-destruction." Plants and animals do not diligently, willingly work towards their own demise---they take what their environment offers and adapts. They know no other way of being. I was looking out the window yesterday, observing the weather. Cloud-bursts. Sun. More cloud-bursts. I thought about what the world would be like if humans ever found a way to harness the Weather. We could make rain, clear the skies of clouds, generate wind ....and how this "power" would more likely become a terrorist weapon of mass destruction rather than a tool of 'good'. Humans would flood each other out before they would send rain to remedy a deadly drought. (By the way, my faith in the human race is not always so downtrodden.) Thinking about the Deep Ecology Platform, I have strong concerns about it erring on the side of fundamentalism. It takes the 'green movement' a step further, however, this step is more like a leap---it makes law what I feel should be personal choice (Tenet #6). It would be a drastic measure. However, it can not be denied that the environmental situation of our planet is drastic and that people are not making conscious choices. Tuning into my faith in humanity, I think there are some simple laws that could be put into place that could evoke and further inspire greater change for the health of the environment. For one, outlawing plastic bags. An intermediary step would be to charge people for plastic bags, and charge enough (a quarter?) so that people would rather re-use a bag or see that they do not actually need a bag. Human habits would change and the enforcement of a "no plastic bag" law would seem less drastic, and may not ultimately be necessary. There are ways to reach people, to get your message across without using force. People could come to this realization on their own: that humankind is an integral part of the environment .....perhaps this is my own idealism speaking.

Can you explain why "Ecosystems are both strong and fragile"? ....Ecosystems are communities. Tightly interwoven, made up of living and non-living elements. Each element is vital and the relationships between these elements is symbiotic. One seemingly small change, in effect, can cause an ecosystem to collapse. It is fragile in this way. Ecosystems are strong however, in their ability to adapt to change. Most humans do not see themselves as part of the ecosystem, but rather, as the ruler of the ecosystem. This approach to our relationship with nature has arguably caused our planet more harm than good. Ecosystems have integrity, and hopefully humans will one day have more integrity when it comes to respecting their mother, Nature.

How would you assess the "end goals" of Social Ecology (SE)? ....I feel that there is an "exposing" tone to the Social Ecology movement---it attempts to reveal and address our society's deeper motives and greater goals. It seems to glare upon society with a suspicious eye, ready to point the finger at corruption. And more than less, rightfully so. (For example, who is the biggest environmental polluter in this country---the US Military.) But more, The SE movement acknowledges that societies reproduce themselves through their practices, and this can not be denied. From an SE perspective, ecological problems are rooted in social problems, and by focusing on social problems, ecological issues, in tandem, will be dealt with and on a deeper level. In my understanding of SE, one of its core concerns is man's attitude of "domination" ....domination of nature and domination of each other. And coupling this with capitalism, hierarchy and a scarcity mentality---we have the state of the world as we know it. I feel that SE makes some good points and I certainly share many of its ideals, albeit it all a bit "utopian."