Blog 1

The Population Explosion: Why We Should Care and What We Should Do About It This article describes the extreme increase in population, known as the population explosion. The article notes that annually the world population increases by an amount equal to the population of Germany. It goes on to say that likely many more 'Germany's' will be added to the total population before we see any halt in population growth. A formula which allows us to calculate a society's impact on the environment is discussed. The factors in this include the number of people, the affluence per person, and the damage caused by technology. It is noted that most of the environmental damage includes vehicles, machinery, appliances, infrastructure, lighting, heating, making of paper, furniture and homes, and agriculture. America is mentioned as it has a very high impact on the environment. It is often assumed that the overpopulated developing countries cause the most environmental impact but compared to America this is not true. Even though developing countries have a much larger population Americans were found to use over ten times more energy then those of developing countries. When considering population and energy consumption numbers the United States is considered the most overpopulated nation. Possible ways to solve the population explosion are discussed, firstly mentioning bringing our population to a sustainable size. Issues with this statement that arise include determining a correct sustainable population. Also, what is a humane way to reduce the population to this size. The second option mentioned to solve the population explosion issue is to decrease the amount of energy used per person. Another solution is to control reproduction. The difference in birth rates between developed and developing countries is discussed. Developing countries have much higher birth rates and this could be slowed by increasing health care, sanitation, education, economic opportunities for both men and women, local resources and providing a fair, responsible government. It seems that for the most effective way to combat population explosion is to decrease all factors; population, damage per person, and technology's damage.
I strongly agree that a decrease in the population growth rate is essential for survival of future generations. Learning from previous classes that the human population is estimated to grow to approximately 9 billion by 2050 and likely continue growing. From multiple classes I have learned the extreme importance of increasing food production. Discussions in other classes show that it is difficult to increase agricultural land so we must increase crop yields. But, it is likely that eventually we will reach a point where agricultural yields cannot further be increased.
Although it is a difficult topic to discuss I feel that most likely we will eventually need to limit the amount of children a couple can have. I feel this is most important in developing countries, but it would also be most difficult to enforce humanely in those areas. The article does note that this would be beneficial in the United States as well due to the huge energy use there. It maybe wouldn't be as helpful in the United States because they are already decreasing birth rates but have such high energy use.
I feel as time goes on if nothing is done to reduce the energy use per person, especially in developed countries, it will be virtually impossible. I feel this way because it is more difficult to take away something from someone. For example, we can assume that people who drive SUVs enjoy them. To take away their SUV and have them drive a smaller, more efficient car would be very difficult as they would see it as an inconvenience. The sooner we place limits on this such as vehicle use, household energy consumption, and other issues, the easier it will be for people to make the adjustment to being energy savvy. The article ends with stating that if our generation cares about the livelihood of future generations we must try to find a solution to this environmental concern. This is a very important point but I feel that many people don't understand the importance. Many people probably just care that they can use unlimited fresh water, or consume as much fuel as they like during their own lifetime.



Our Stolen Future
This article begins describing the similarities between humans and other invertebrates, including primates, mice, alligators, and turtles. It is noted that persistent synthetic chemicals store in our body fat just as they do in other animals that have experienced extreme negative effects in the past, leading us to assume harm can also be done to humans. Critics then argue that testing is not done appropriately as scientists test extremely high doses on small mice, so extreme that a human probably couldn't consume that amount of chemical in a lifetime. The focus of this article is endocrine-disrupting synthetic chemicals. Unfortunately the article doesn't mention many of the chemical names. The article refers to DES, which was taken by pregnant women and resulted in newborn abnormalities. This is a tragic example which, from knowledge, resulted from under testing of the medication. This example shows the drastic effect that under researched medications can have on humans. DES is an example of an opportunity cost, in which decreasing sickness of pregnant women was the main focus, but what was given up to achieve this was the unknown risk to their unborn children. This can also be related to DDT, in which controlling malaria infected mosquitoes was the main focus, but the egg shell strength of birds in the habitat were severely affected, resulting in the death of developing birds. By examining past studies scientists have determined that humans as well as other animals are in jeopardy of the major effects of hormones on normal development. The difficulty in determining the potential impact is discussed as it is transgenerational, so there can be a significant time lag before noticeable damage, the difference in nature of contamination, and the fact that often the damage is invisible. Over the years many cases of genital abnormalities reported by pediatricians have been reported but it is difficult to report all cases. Endocrine disruption problems may have to become a crisis before enough attention is given to the issue. It is believed that continued animal testing will provide insight for potential human health issues.

I believe that as much testing as possible should be done on a chemical or product before its public use is allowed. But in some cases products are brought out for emergency use, for example Folicur, a wheat fungicide, was allowed to be sold in Manitoba before it had been registered by CFIA because risk of rust infection was so threatening. It is possible that although Folicur had undergone much research not all possible effects had been discovered. When speaking of the precautionary principle I feel there are many situations when a product must be used in the hope it will help, but it should not be unexpected that sometimes serious issues will arise from the use of under-tested products.




Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
This article is about past societies that have 'failed' by depleting their ecosystems of various essential objects, including fertile soil, sanitary water, and wildlife populations. It is also about the realizations that must be made so our current societies don't also fail. Diamond discusses his own opinions as well as the opinions of others to discuss the state of societies in the past, the present, and the future. The article asks the reader a few questions; Will modern technology solve our problems, or is it creating new problems faster than it solves old ones? When we deplete one resource can we count on being able to substitute some new resource? Isn't the rate of human population growth declining, such that we're already on course for the world's population to level off at some manageable number of people?

I believe that fairly far into the future technology will still be able solve our problems and that it will help us to find new resources that can be used instead of depleted resources. Thorough out my own lifetime I have seen technology 'dig us out of many holes'. For example, with increasing populations comes the need for increased food. This has been provided by use of technology to enhance crop yields. But I do feel that possibly someday we will max out the ability of technology to save us. I do agree that technology is also a huge source of new problems. I do believe that the rate of human population is leveling off to create a 'carrying capacity' for the Earth, but I do feel this is mainly happening in developed countries. This leads me to believe that the developing countries are most at risk for a collapse as they already have limited resources that they are trying to spread even more thinly throughout a large population.

In most cases the benefits that we have over past civilizations are also our largest detriments. Including technology, medicine, and globalization. Diamond feels that the most important factors that contribute to environmental collapse include environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbours, friendly trade partners and a society's response to its environmental problems. Diamond mentions that there are two different groups of people with opinions regarding thoughts on environmental issues; the 'environmentalists', and the 'non-environmentalists', who feel the environmentalists are exaggerating. Diamond mentions that most people belong to either group, I feel that most people lie somewhere in between the two extremes, and possibly fall into both groups depending on the specific issue. I feel that I fall into both categories in many ways. For example, I'm skeptical of climate change but believe strongly that environmental degradation is a huge concern. This article has succeeded in discussing many of the issues that cause us to be at risk for a collapse in society. The article also hints that learning from past societies who have failed would be very wise.




Fragile Earth - Yann Arthus-Bertrand
In this short video, http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/yann_arthus_bertrand_captures_fragile_earth_in_wide_angle.html , Yann discusses many environmental issues of today. He states that people do not want to admit what we know. A shocking point he makes early in the discussion is that we use three times more oil than we currently extract each year. He also discusses things such as the risk to the coral reefs, the state of the arctic region, loss of ice to Mount Kilimanjaro, over exploitation of fish stocks, and grain utilization in North America. The video also goes through selections of people from around the world discussing various issues. Also shown is a preview for Yann's film "Home" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU which discusses environmental safety and the importance of sustaining our planet.
This video gave various facts that I was surprised at, such as the amount of oil extracted as well as how much ice has melted from Mount Kilimanjaro. I enjoyed the preview for the film "Home" and would like to watch it soon. I thought the clips shown from various people around the world were rather confusing. The discussions of the people did not seem to follow a general theme. It seems as if it is a preview for an upcoming video.



Classroom Issues
So far in class many issues have been discussed. I found it interesting when each student was assigned to bring in a 'hot topic' to discuss in class. Lately, for this class as well as in others, and in general interest searches I have been frustrated by the media and sources who only seem to show 'one side' of a certain topic. It would be nice to find reliable sources that discuss issues from both sides, not just defending their own opinion.

This has come up while doing searches especially regarding agricultural issues, ie. pesticide use, soil fertility, genetically modified foods, and many more. With these issues often material presented doesn't take into account many factors such as how food is actually produced in a conventional atmosphere. I feel like in the conventional vs. organic farming debate conventional agriculture is not given enough credit. For example, in a report on conventional beef production the article claimed that all cattle were given antibiotics and growth hormones. On my family's conventional beef farm we have never once used growth hormones in over 20 years of raising beef cattle.

In a recent class a professor claimed that Monsanto had produced GMO canola that causes an issue as it is resistant to the chemical that a farmer sprays to control broadleaf weeds in his wheat crop. This is untrue, there are two types of resistant GMO canolas; Roundup Ready (RR), and LibertyLink (LL). RR canolas are resistant to glyphosate (Roundup), and LL canolas are resistant to Glufosinate-Ammonium (Liberty). Neither of these chemicals would be sprayed on a wheat field, they would kill it. However, any product that would be sprayed on a wheat field, with the intention of controlling broadleaf weeds would control either of these two types of canola, given proper chemical rate, water volume, environmental conditions, etc. Incorrect facts such as the two mentioned seem to 'hit a nerve' as I feel that people who are uneducated about agriculture show a bias against it, when really the presenter didn't know his facts.

To answer the question recently asked in class about whether or not the precautionary principle should be used, I have mixed opinions. To bring up DDT as an extreme case, this pesticide was sprayed to control mosquitos carrying Malaria. DDT may have saved many lives, but had extremely unfortunate effects on bird populations as the chemical collected in their tissues, causing their shells to be too weak to protect a growing chick. I suppose DDT should have had more testing done to prove safety, or lack of, but how much testing is enough? Can anyone ever be sure of the safety of their product? In the case of DDT I believe it was an issue of opportunity cost; do you risk malaria infection or do you spray a chemical that you think is safe? Perhaps we in Canada, where there wasn't such an extreme risk of death from Malaria, don't have the right to make that judgement. Afterall, it wasn't our lives at risk, or our birds.