The title of my blog is the "practical environmentalist." One word represents a practical stance, a stance that attempts to base itself on facts and reality versus emotionalism. Contrast this with the term "enviropnmentalist," which is stereotyped as a granola-eating bycicling yuppy with no grasp on reality, and you have a pretty good contradiction. It is, however, completely possible for these two worlds to exist together, and indeed, complement each other. Idealism won't run a farm, but mindlessly searching for money is a sure way to destroy nature. In my mind, the best run farm, business, or operation, is one that seeks overall sustainability - meaning one that balances profits, fiscal responsbility, and environmentalism as well. On a farm, sustainabilty and environmentalism can actually create a highly profitable farm, as people like Joel Salatin, Greg Judy, and other farming "pioneers" prove.
The point of this is, without a practical side to it, environmentalism can occasionally sound like a crack. "Save the owls, screw the people" may sound familiar to some people. Allowing "eco-freak-ism" to be tempered with a practical, reasonable side results in well-rounded viewpoint. The main point of all of this is that it is extremely important to be objective when forming an opinion, on anything really, not just climate change. Scientists are generally very good at this; the scientific method is, after all, based on asking questions. If scientists weren't good at asking questions, we wouldn't be very far along! Scientists also have to be objective. This means that if evidence causes a viewpoint to need to be thrown out the window, it is thrown merrily out the window. (More likely it is sedately, after much debate, thrown out the window...) Skepticism is an important aspect of any scientist's psyche. Ask a scientist a question about something odd-ball, and they are bound to give you an odd look. This is not because they are closed minded, but rather because they are skeptical of data that contradicts what they know. In a nutshell, scientists don't rely on neighborhood gossip. If a local says he say a 'coon, the other local assumes there was a 'coon. If a scientist hears it, though, there could have been anything or nothing until he sees evidence that there was a 'coon.
To put it bluntly, most of these extremely intelligent people have used science, data, and questioning to come up with the conclusion that climate change is happening, and that it is most likely caused by man. (Case in point - CO2 levels rise, CO2 causes warming, and humans happen to be emitting a lot of the stuff. It's hard to skew the data there.) A lot of this is about repeatable data. Typically, when arguing with skeptics, they tend to bring up politics. There are some good points and bad points to this, but the main flaw is that this is where their opinions are based. Granted, it's easier to read Fox News if you always read it anyway, but who's telling you? The people who know weather and climate science or the people with an agenda? The average scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is about 95%.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
So why are politics a bad place to find actual facts? Well, first off, to tell if a politician is lying, just watch the lips. Not always true, obviously, but it does encourage one to try to take a hard stance on what people are saying. Can they back it up, with studies perhaps? Not really, most of the studies done by reputable sources support AGW (anthropogenic global warming), which is inconvenient for skeptical politicians. The only thing they could really do is find disgruntled scientists who support them, which works, except they are a severe minority, as we've already discussed. They can also just say things that are incorrect, because a lot of people want to believe they're right. Politicians have a lot of different opinions and agendas themselves, as well. Of course, politics do come into the picture, since politics run the way the country and the world respond to climate change. However, whatever the mired case for the politicians is, the point that I'm trying to make is quite clear and blunt: Don't form your opinion listening to politicians. If you study the science, and actually come to understand climate science and weather, you will find there is a mountain of evidence for climate change. There also is a pile of evidence refuting it, but it is hardly the elephant in the room and it's existence is acknowledged by scientists, however, none of it destroys the AGW theory. (The ice caps would need to stop melting for that to happen.) So, instead of listening to heresy and backtalk, please, try to educate yourself on the basics. If you don't know the wavelength of light CO2 reflects, the effects of cloud cover on heat in the atmosphere, and why hot weather can generate more, stronger storms, you need to brush up. This isn't to say you can't form an opinion anyways, but please try not to form opinions from opinions.
1. http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
3. http://theconsensusproject.com/
4. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
5. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
6. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Friday, November 28, 2014
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Building a case for species: How valuable is DNA?
In this post I'd like to write about... Well, all right, I won't use the corny "I will tell" line. I shall just write, and we will see, right? Because when we see things, instead of being told, things can sink in better. Extinction works in a similar way. "First you see it, now you don't," is unfortunately how a lot of extinction happens. Of course, that's telling about extinction. Extinction occurs more frequently than any would like to admit. For many, the problem is not serious enough to cause concern, or it is not considered a problem at all. In the case of extinction, the most powerful way to "tell" about it is to "show" about it, which is rather hard to do in a blog post. To start, I will show you some numbers.
According to Wikipedia, "3079 animals and 2655 plants are endangered worldwide, compared with 1998 levels of 1102 and 1197, respectively." That is almost triple and more than double in these examples. Congratulations humanity. Now let's talk about DNA.
DNA refers to the genetic material that makes up a species genome. Without going in depth on the science behind DNA, suffice it to say, DNA is the reproductive material for a species. Each member of a species carries with it the complete genome, with some minor variations, for the entire species. (This minor variation is enough, of course, to cause an essentially endless amount of different combinations.) DNA and how it works is an extremely fascinating discussion. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, referring to the molecular content, which is not important to know unless you are a biologist.
Let's look at the human genome by the numbers briefly. The human has 23 chromosomes under normal circumstances. Each chromosome has a different amount of "meat" in it, meaning "base pairs." Base pairs refers to the actual DNA molecules (pairs of them, obviously.) There are 3,234.83 million base pairs in the human, which equates to roughly 3.2 billion. (It is almost impossible to count to 1B in your lifetime, by the way, especially if you take bathroom breaks or sleep. Counting to 3B could take roughly 150 years.) Yet your cells have no problem copying this material constantly. This amount of material is equal to copying several books, large ones.
It is a lot of information. That much is clear, right? It is a lot of information. Every species contains so much DNA, and codes for so many different things, that we simply can't be aware of all of the things it does. The Human Genome Project took years to map the first human genome, and now genome mapping is much more efficient, but we still don't know what all those molecules do.
Wait... We still don't know everything? Hmmm.... So back to our issue of extinction. If a species dies out, and all we have left is a single hair, is the species still alive? Not unless we develop Jurassic park technology and create animals out of their DNA samples. Which leads me to conclude that, as a book lover, species are like books in a way. They all serve a purpose, whether or not we narrow-minded humans can see it, and they all contain a vast amount of information, and each species could be seen as a chapter in the world's history book.
So what happens when a species goes extinct? We lose an entire chapter of the world with it. Everything in the world has a story to tell, but when an entire species disappears, we lose entire volumes of information. What if that last species that went extinct held the key to curing cancer? Maybe, or maybe not. But a piece of the ecosystem did disappear. When a piece of the puzzle disappears, either there is an incomplete picture or something must come in to replace it. Currently, various sources say we are technically experiencing a mass extinction event, equivalent to extinctions such as the death of the dinosaurs and other such events. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, this would be the 6th such event - in geologic time, small numbers mean very significant things. A year means nothing - but hundreds of species dead in a year means a very great deal. According to the CBD again, roughly 7 to 13 percent of American species alone are at risk of extinction.
We can applaud ourselves for creating circumstances equivalent to a massive meteor impact, volcanic eruption, or similar highly destructive events. While if one of these events were to happen, it would be natural and unavoidable, our behavior has damaged the world, and it is avoidable. It makes sense to avoid things of risk - generally staying away from carcinogens is better than exposing yourself constantly. Similarly, the high risk of endangered species is avoidable, and saving them is better than losing them. Generally speaking, species go extinct naturally. Evolution, natural selection, adaptation, and etc. are all highly efficient pruning methods used by nature. But our destruction is essentially inexusable. Not only do we irreversibly destroy entire species, but we also damage ourselves, in one way or another, by damaging our ecosystems. We can clearly see, through a variety of methods, that our interactions with the environment are extremely destructive, and destructive towards ourselves as well.
There is hope, however. Educating normal people about the plight our fellow creatures have will enlighten people and possible encourage them to change. Putting monetary values on species could also prove helpful, since the value that species have to their ecosystems can only be guessed. We can encourage, educate, and do our part to avoid destroying our species, the chapters in the world's book, and the incredibly complex and valuable information that every species offers through their DNA. We owe it to the world, as the species that has done the most harm in the shortest time span, to collectively accept responsibility for our actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
http://www.earthsendangered.com/full_list.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
According to Wikipedia, "3079 animals and 2655 plants are endangered worldwide, compared with 1998 levels of 1102 and 1197, respectively." That is almost triple and more than double in these examples. Congratulations humanity. Now let's talk about DNA.
DNA refers to the genetic material that makes up a species genome. Without going in depth on the science behind DNA, suffice it to say, DNA is the reproductive material for a species. Each member of a species carries with it the complete genome, with some minor variations, for the entire species. (This minor variation is enough, of course, to cause an essentially endless amount of different combinations.) DNA and how it works is an extremely fascinating discussion. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, referring to the molecular content, which is not important to know unless you are a biologist.
Let's look at the human genome by the numbers briefly. The human has 23 chromosomes under normal circumstances. Each chromosome has a different amount of "meat" in it, meaning "base pairs." Base pairs refers to the actual DNA molecules (pairs of them, obviously.) There are 3,234.83 million base pairs in the human, which equates to roughly 3.2 billion. (It is almost impossible to count to 1B in your lifetime, by the way, especially if you take bathroom breaks or sleep. Counting to 3B could take roughly 150 years.) Yet your cells have no problem copying this material constantly. This amount of material is equal to copying several books, large ones.
It is a lot of information. That much is clear, right? It is a lot of information. Every species contains so much DNA, and codes for so many different things, that we simply can't be aware of all of the things it does. The Human Genome Project took years to map the first human genome, and now genome mapping is much more efficient, but we still don't know what all those molecules do.
Wait... We still don't know everything? Hmmm.... So back to our issue of extinction. If a species dies out, and all we have left is a single hair, is the species still alive? Not unless we develop Jurassic park technology and create animals out of their DNA samples. Which leads me to conclude that, as a book lover, species are like books in a way. They all serve a purpose, whether or not we narrow-minded humans can see it, and they all contain a vast amount of information, and each species could be seen as a chapter in the world's history book.
So what happens when a species goes extinct? We lose an entire chapter of the world with it. Everything in the world has a story to tell, but when an entire species disappears, we lose entire volumes of information. What if that last species that went extinct held the key to curing cancer? Maybe, or maybe not. But a piece of the ecosystem did disappear. When a piece of the puzzle disappears, either there is an incomplete picture or something must come in to replace it. Currently, various sources say we are technically experiencing a mass extinction event, equivalent to extinctions such as the death of the dinosaurs and other such events. According to the Center for Biological Diversity, this would be the 6th such event - in geologic time, small numbers mean very significant things. A year means nothing - but hundreds of species dead in a year means a very great deal. According to the CBD again, roughly 7 to 13 percent of American species alone are at risk of extinction.
We can applaud ourselves for creating circumstances equivalent to a massive meteor impact, volcanic eruption, or similar highly destructive events. While if one of these events were to happen, it would be natural and unavoidable, our behavior has damaged the world, and it is avoidable. It makes sense to avoid things of risk - generally staying away from carcinogens is better than exposing yourself constantly. Similarly, the high risk of endangered species is avoidable, and saving them is better than losing them. Generally speaking, species go extinct naturally. Evolution, natural selection, adaptation, and etc. are all highly efficient pruning methods used by nature. But our destruction is essentially inexusable. Not only do we irreversibly destroy entire species, but we also damage ourselves, in one way or another, by damaging our ecosystems. We can clearly see, through a variety of methods, that our interactions with the environment are extremely destructive, and destructive towards ourselves as well.
There is hope, however. Educating normal people about the plight our fellow creatures have will enlighten people and possible encourage them to change. Putting monetary values on species could also prove helpful, since the value that species have to their ecosystems can only be guessed. We can encourage, educate, and do our part to avoid destroying our species, the chapters in the world's book, and the incredibly complex and valuable information that every species offers through their DNA. We owe it to the world, as the species that has done the most harm in the shortest time span, to collectively accept responsibility for our actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome
http://www.earthsendangered.com/full_list.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_species
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
Monday, July 7, 2014
A Case For The Environment and People
Hello all, to any who take the time to read this. In so doing, I thank you for being willing to take the time out of your day to read my writ. I have ultimately decided that leaving my blog dormant for 10 months after creating it was a bad decision. Thus, before writing about the main topic of my introductory post, which will be about the title of this post, I will introduce myself.
I am, first and foremost, a Christian and a farmer. But I am many other things as well. I do not attempt to brag, but rather to give you, the reader, a better understanding of who I am so that we may better see eye-to-eye. I am an entrepreneur, and I have always enjoyed the challenge of starting a new business, whether or not it succeeded, or if the business plan was scrapped after a few months or a year. I enjoy writing, about things scientific and beautiful. I am enrolled in college, attaining a biological science degree. And to a whole other degree, to an extent that had annoyed my peers, alienated certain people, and baffled most of my friends, I am an environmentalist.
This is almost a contradiction in terms. An environmentalist is someone who wants to help the environment, the place where we, and all of the plants and animals, live. A farmer environmentalist? Rare, because farmers generally want to use chemicals and fossil fuels to farm extensively. Well, I do use some fossil fuels, but that can't be helped very much. More on that in another post, perhaps.
An entrepreneur environmentalist? Businessmen hate environmentalists out of tradition. Who wants to listen to a bunch of hippies say they can't cut that tree, or that forest, or that whole continent of trees down? Who wants to be told they can't dump just a little bit of arsenic into the stream, or refuse or other waste? That's bad for business. But I believe in responsibility for actions, and business and the environment is a fully compatible option - and, in fact, is really the only option. Responsible technology, responsible business, responsible people - these are people we want to have in charge and running things. Odds are, that same boss who wants to dump into the river, seriously doesn't want to give you that raise you deserve.
And, even better... A Christian environmentalist? No offense, but if you are a Christian, which I think you probably are, you will think that is very odd. I believe God will provide for us, but what I do not believe is that he is willing to provide for a people who are fully willing to relentlessly plunder the beautiful planet He has given them. Or stand idle and watch the corporations of the world engage in their rape-like tactics and destroy the wondrous gift He has given them.
Some people consider me misguided because of my strong views here. Climate change is not an issue; it's natural. Corporations are not bad, they create jobs. Pollution is not an issue, it keeps costs down. Scientists don't know everything, so we shouldn't listen to them about anything. Business as usual, the trees will come back eventually. The ice caps aren't melting, never mind this graph that looks like a 3-year-old drew a cliff. Any scientists or science types will be cringing by now....
And that, my readers, is why I am an environmentalist. I feel under a moral, ethical obligation to be as responsible and caring, and reverent, to as many things as possible. That includes people, animals, the environment, and plants and even things, because things must be created again after being damaged or destroyed. That DIY vehicle repair job you do where you replace a small motor instead of the entire contraption is actually extremely environmentally conscious of you while saving money.
Ultimately, that is why I feel that this is my call to action. What better way to serve than to serve God, my fellow people, science, and the environment and even the business model all at the exact same time? Is it possible? I believe so. I have certainly managed to be all of these things, and they are at peace in my mind. Ultimately, my goal is to bring empowerment to those who wish to act, knowledge to those who do not know, and enlightenment to those who are clinging to what corporations or the media has fed them. More on specifics later; this has been my introductory post. I do not feel that helping the environment is incorrect. I also do not believe that helping people and helping the environment are two mutually exclusive things. I think that, when they go hand in hand, the perfect situation is created. We, and all of our brethren, live on this world. For however much longer you personally believe we will live on this earth, for another decade or millions or even billions of years, we have a moral obligation to make life on this earth as good as possible for each other. Thus, when we help the environment, we are directly helping the citizens of the world, whether or not the benefits are immediately tangible benefits. However, in many cases, the benefits are fully tangible.
Thank you for reading this. Have a good day.
I am, first and foremost, a Christian and a farmer. But I am many other things as well. I do not attempt to brag, but rather to give you, the reader, a better understanding of who I am so that we may better see eye-to-eye. I am an entrepreneur, and I have always enjoyed the challenge of starting a new business, whether or not it succeeded, or if the business plan was scrapped after a few months or a year. I enjoy writing, about things scientific and beautiful. I am enrolled in college, attaining a biological science degree. And to a whole other degree, to an extent that had annoyed my peers, alienated certain people, and baffled most of my friends, I am an environmentalist.
This is almost a contradiction in terms. An environmentalist is someone who wants to help the environment, the place where we, and all of the plants and animals, live. A farmer environmentalist? Rare, because farmers generally want to use chemicals and fossil fuels to farm extensively. Well, I do use some fossil fuels, but that can't be helped very much. More on that in another post, perhaps.
An entrepreneur environmentalist? Businessmen hate environmentalists out of tradition. Who wants to listen to a bunch of hippies say they can't cut that tree, or that forest, or that whole continent of trees down? Who wants to be told they can't dump just a little bit of arsenic into the stream, or refuse or other waste? That's bad for business. But I believe in responsibility for actions, and business and the environment is a fully compatible option - and, in fact, is really the only option. Responsible technology, responsible business, responsible people - these are people we want to have in charge and running things. Odds are, that same boss who wants to dump into the river, seriously doesn't want to give you that raise you deserve.
And, even better... A Christian environmentalist? No offense, but if you are a Christian, which I think you probably are, you will think that is very odd. I believe God will provide for us, but what I do not believe is that he is willing to provide for a people who are fully willing to relentlessly plunder the beautiful planet He has given them. Or stand idle and watch the corporations of the world engage in their rape-like tactics and destroy the wondrous gift He has given them.
Some people consider me misguided because of my strong views here. Climate change is not an issue; it's natural. Corporations are not bad, they create jobs. Pollution is not an issue, it keeps costs down. Scientists don't know everything, so we shouldn't listen to them about anything. Business as usual, the trees will come back eventually. The ice caps aren't melting, never mind this graph that looks like a 3-year-old drew a cliff. Any scientists or science types will be cringing by now....
And that, my readers, is why I am an environmentalist. I feel under a moral, ethical obligation to be as responsible and caring, and reverent, to as many things as possible. That includes people, animals, the environment, and plants and even things, because things must be created again after being damaged or destroyed. That DIY vehicle repair job you do where you replace a small motor instead of the entire contraption is actually extremely environmentally conscious of you while saving money.
Ultimately, that is why I feel that this is my call to action. What better way to serve than to serve God, my fellow people, science, and the environment and even the business model all at the exact same time? Is it possible? I believe so. I have certainly managed to be all of these things, and they are at peace in my mind. Ultimately, my goal is to bring empowerment to those who wish to act, knowledge to those who do not know, and enlightenment to those who are clinging to what corporations or the media has fed them. More on specifics later; this has been my introductory post. I do not feel that helping the environment is incorrect. I also do not believe that helping people and helping the environment are two mutually exclusive things. I think that, when they go hand in hand, the perfect situation is created. We, and all of our brethren, live on this world. For however much longer you personally believe we will live on this earth, for another decade or millions or even billions of years, we have a moral obligation to make life on this earth as good as possible for each other. Thus, when we help the environment, we are directly helping the citizens of the world, whether or not the benefits are immediately tangible benefits. However, in many cases, the benefits are fully tangible.
Thank you for reading this. Have a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)