Course: ENVR 2000
Student Name: Sarah Hawley
Student Number: 7633846
Reading Summaries
Student Name: Sarah Hawley
Student Number: 7633846
Reading Summaries
Selection 38: “Human Carrying Capacity”
Easter Island was surrounded by uninhabited land and as such, the people who lived there were very isolated. This civilization flourished and there are many remarkable accomplishments that attest to their success; up to a thousand statues were found ranging from two to twenty metres high. They cleared forests for agriculture and this allowed the ability to sustain more people, as such the population grew rapidly. Agriculture however, lead to the reduction of soil fertility and caused soil erosion. As the crops became less productive due to poor soil conditions, additional land had to be cleared to accommodate the nutritional needs of growing populations. At the same time as agriculture was forced onto marginal lands, non-native species such as rats were introduced causing a disruption to the natural ecosystem. Furthermore, certain species were overhunted which led to extinction and ultimately the loss of diversity. Pollen began to decrease between the eight and tenth century, resulting in the demise of forests which caused vast soil erosion. Water sources disappeared also began to disappear. Daggers and spearheads appeared, likely suggesting that as resources began to diminish and competition escalated, famine and warfare ensued.
The maximum number of lives that the earth could support given the amount of resources and space available, it referred to as the carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of a population is a combination of many interdependent factors; resources, soil conditions, population size, global markets and the overall economic well-being of a society. Many people living in the developed world can become accustomed to such a high standard of living that the ability for impoverished nations to achieve similar standards would likely deplete the world of all the necessities required for life. Consequently, in order to limit the effects of a wasteful and disconnected society, living conditions would have to become less luxurious in order to sustain a growing population. A passive equilibrium, where the human population is in balance with its natural surroundings and the limits of the land, is sustainable. However, as humans developed intellectually, they began to develop abilities to master the environment to suit their short-term needs. This began with fire and then led to cultivation which enabled humans to settle in one area. Then civilizations developed, as well as technological advancements. Instead of being part of a natural environment, humans began to feel as though they created their own environment, giving them the notion that their existence was of their own making and independent from the natural systems of the Earth. Unfortunately the ability to transform ones’ environment may appear to have succeeded on the short term, but its consequences will far outweigh the benefits in the future.
Selection 7: “The Tragedy of the Commons”
The majority of people who are seeking a solution to the issue of a rapidly growing population, wish to find a solution that prevents the imminent catastrophe overpopulation brings without sacrificing any of their own comforts. In order to solve this issue, one must expand beyond the idea of creating new food sources. The concept of “The invisible hand” is best described as decisions that are made to benefit the individual will be the best decisions for the entire society. This is exemplified by the following. If one were to imagine a pasture that is open to everyone, each herdsman who occupies the land will ensure that he has as many cattle on the land as possible. However, wars, disease and poaching will keep numbers of cattle and herdsmen down and as such this system is relatively sustainable. This changes when freedom is introduced in the form of social structure, as it is no longer every man for himself, but each herdsman is entitled to land. With this sense of entitlement comes the compelling desire to increase individual profit by continuously expanding without thought of consequences to the land.
Oceans have no ownership; however this brings many maritime species to the brinks of extinction. Similarly, many parks have no limits and are open to all to use freely. It is suggested that in order to create limits on these areas of natural beauty, they must be controlled privately or by some other means of limiting access. With the issue of pollution, whereby harmful wastes are added to natural environments, is hard to manage because the cost of purifying waste before it is disposed of is far more expensive than disposing it in its raw form. This must be changed, through taxes or introduced laws that reverse the costs of waste disposal so that pollution to water and the atmosphere is reduced. Polluting one’s property and the areas that surround it, such as bodies of water, would not have such a disastrous affect on the environment as a whole if the population was less dense. The real issue is that each property owner pollutes his land and all live within a short distance of each other, creating an area with heavy pollution.
In order to control population, the idea of large families that are free to reproduce must be reconsidered. In a competition environment, families with many children would not have enough resources to provide for them. This however is not the case in present society. Welfare allows families to grow to a size that is beyond what they could sustain individually, but rather rely on the support of external factors. Charles Darwin suggests that people vary based on their values and consciences, as some will respond to the need to limit population by having fewer children but some will not. In order to take action and solve current environmental issues, people must understand that there is never a perfect plan because “perfect” is unattainable and even though a perfect plan of action doesn’t exist, it isn’t a reason not to act. The necessity to act against overpopulation is pressing, yet there is no easy course of action that will solve every complex part of this problem. Yet this doesn’t mean that something cannot be done, for if nothing is done then our demise will soon follow. Individual freedom is cherished and many lives have been lost in its pursuit, however in order to preserve the future (for I believe neglecting future generations the hope of a healthy and happy life, we are in a way depriving them of freedom) restrictions on family size must be implemented or there simply will not be enough resources to sustain the future.
Selection 42 “Collapse: How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed”
Many past societies have collapsed in response to political, social and economic changes. A collapse results in the steady decrease of population and/or the destruction of political, social or economic realms in a given area. Many societal collapses have occurred in the past, such as the Minoan Crete society in Europe or the Easter Island in the Pacific. These past civilizations leave behind footprints that illustrate how they once thrived. Their ruins give us a glimpse into the past. It is likely that these past civilizations experienced ecological problems, much like what humanity is facing today. Evidencary support has been found to suggest that past societies have damaged their environments through; deforestation, soil erosion and fertility loss, depletion of water resources, overhunting, overfishing, non- native species, increased wealth of inhabitants. Population growth forced several means of food production, such as intensified agriculture onto marginal lands. Ultimately it is believed that these past civilizations came to their demise through starvation, food shortages, wars, lack of resources, disease. What about the threat of societal collapse today? The environmental problems that past civilizations faced are still eminent today, including even more; human induced climate change, toxic chemicals, and global energy shortages. If such a collapse would occur, modern societies would face global epidemics, wars, and the scarcity of natural resources that nearly everyone relies upon in their daily lives. The importance to fully understand and lean about past societies takes on a new meaning. Not only is it important to learn about societies that have collapsed, but also why other societies thrived. We differ from past societies in that we have; powerful technology (both advantageous and potentially potent), modern medicine, globalization, fuller understanding of past societies, and a much greater population size. Some societies have faced environmental problems in the past, but have managed to overcome them and continue to be a prospering nation. Why did these civilizations thrive, when others collapsed? Norwegian colonists of Iceland experienced an environmental catastrophe that led to the destruction of most of their topsoil and forests. They overcame this however, by implementing strict environmental actions and learning from past experiences.
Climate change can be driven by natural variations in precipitation and temperatures and these changes have nothing to do with human actions. Such causes of these variations are natural forces; volcanic eruptions, solar energy received from the Sun, Earth’s tilt, and changes in the Land vs. Water distribution. The combination of human induced environmental impact and climate change that often proved fatal for ancient civilizations. Largely due to the fact that as climate fluxes naturally, many civilizations were not prepared because they had depleted their natural resources with the intention of replenishment. Under changed climatic circumstances, the resources were not replenished and the society faced collapse. The fall of the Roman Empire in 476 A.D. due to the increasing bararian invasions. The barbarian tribes had always been present on the outskirts of Rome, so why did they all of a sudden overtake the mighty and powerful civilization? Was it because they had developed more powerful weapons and methods of war tactics? Or was it because the Roman Empire had experienced problems, either environmental or economical in nature that gave them a weakness in the face of battle?
There are two ideologies about environmental problems at present. The first idea is that environmental problems are imminent and must be solved immediately with drastic reductions in population growth and economic ventures. The second outlook is that economic and population growth is still feasible and that most environmentalists’ views are exaggerated.
Activity
The Bottom Line Video with David Suzuki
The activity I chose to do for my blog is a video called The Bottom Line that was featured on CBC and it discusses the issues of the environment and what type of role the economy plays in preserving our natural surroundings. David Suzuki narrates the video and it starts off in Haida Gwaai in British Columbia. This is the home of the First Nations and the mountains in the area have been clear-cut and are now a second growth forest. The Haida people are a community of 500 and they use all of the resources they need to survive, including salmon and harvesting cedar to build homes. However recently the ecology has been changing and the former Environment Minister Jim Prentice must find a way of working with the people to manage the area through restoration and replenishment. David Suzuki speaks with Mr. Prentice regarding the issue of Haida people and he brings up the issue of the atmosphere and how important it is to the overall biome. Everything else is connected to the atmosphere and recently it has been acidifying the oceans and creating warmer waters. This will cause 85% of parks in the region to be destroyed from acid yet, however it appears that there is resistance to acknowledge the atmosphere. The pressing need is there, but it seems that Mr. Prentice and the Haida people feel as though they have implemented enough change to manage ecological issues. In reality, they feel as though the “economy is the bottom line” and implementing further changes may be costly.
In the second half of the video, David Suzuki speaks with Sir Nicholas Stern who was the former chief economist of the World Bank, on the issue of the environment and the economy. Sir Nicholas Stern assessed the cost and risk of climate change and he urged that carbon emissions need be at 4 tonnes per capita per annum, but at present levels are at 47 billion tonnes per capita. Canada alone produces 20 tonnes per person of carbon emissions. The magnitude of risks to the environment is astounding. In order to implement change, citizens and governments must look at the economy as separate from the environment. Emphasize needs to be on conditional growth and alternatives to hydrocarbon and understand that growth cannot be the same in the future as it has been in the past. There is a fifty percent chance that global temperatures will be two degrees Celsius higher in the next one hundred years; however there is little urgency to address this issue. Unfortunately, the reality is abstract to most people and it must be understood that the danger is great if no changes are made to the current ways of life in the developed world. Canada has done virtually nothing to implement change and reduce carbon emissions. Sir Nicholas Stern proposes that solar, wind and geothermal are all great ideas, but they are not enough. There must be legislation and taxation (carbon taxes) in order to generate funds for research into other areas of reducing carbon emissions.
Towards the end of the video, Mr. Suzuki speaks with Jim Prentice again and this time the issue of balancing the economy and environment arise. Mr. Prentice believes that in order to solve environmental issues, the economy must be thriving however Mr. Suzuki presses that the imminent threat of human induced climate change is second to a nuclear war in terms of the cataclysmic damage it would cause. He asks the question, that as what point will the economy be allowed to take a hit to save the environment because in reality if changes continue to occur in the environment, the economy will no longer have means to thrive. If we wait for experience to tell us it will be too late and impossible to reverse. Before actual feasible changes will be implemented, the issue must create an inconvenient reality in the lives of everyday people. Such as when gas prices took a sudden dramatic height, everyone actually began to notice how much gas they used and they began to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Overall, the message that David Suzuki profoundly conveys in this video is that the survival of our species is threatened by our actions and in order to implement change the environment must be perceived as the only component which makes our thriving economy possible.
Reflection
Blog Reflection #1- How well does the media do in each of the areas of critical thinking? Clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, breadth, depth, logic.
Clarity- As an avid reader of the newspaper and online international news articles regarding natural events, such as disasters, environmental research and climate change, I have found that if the media succeeds at anything, it is clarity. Media publishers are always searching for dramatic and attention grabbing titles that lure readers to their articles, whether they are relevant or accurate is not a promise of course. They are however, clear in their objective. Whether it may be an article on, “Niger Delta oil spills dwarf BP, Exxon Valdez catastrophes” or “Australia’s Queensland Faces Biblical Flood,” the statement is clear. They may lack the resources to provide enough detail to prove that the flood in Queensland is actually of biblical proportions; however the audience is clear that this article is regarding a catastrophic flood in Australia or an oil spill in the Niger Delta.
Accuracy- This is exemplified in the media with the issue of natural disasters and hazards. On the days following an event, such as severe flooding or an earthquake, the initial information released by the media regarding economic damage, magnitude and the number of causalities is often inaccurate. The main issue is that following a major event people are eager to hear what happened and often information that is released shortly following an event is less accurate. Simply because there has not been adequate time to fully investigate and thoroughly examine its implications to the devastated region. Often when earthquakes occur, it will be reported that the magnitude was 7.0M on the Richter scale but two days later this will be adjusted to 7.5M or 8.0M. As such, those who access the media should be aware that the information is not necessarily accurate and consequently this may affect how relevant and precise it is as well.
Precision- In the media, more often than not, the objective is to convey the main points as concisely and effectively as possible before losing the attention of the audience. As such, specific details are left behind to make room for a brief summary of the event or topic being discussed. This is evident on online international newspaper articles, where the article is only a few paragraphs long so it is difficult to provide a lot of detail in such a limited space. Academic peer-reviewed journals and scientific magazines would likely be a better source for precise, detailed information on events.
Relevance- Sometimes in the media, information is conveyed in a clear and accurate way when describing the objective of the article, such as with the title or introduction. However the audience may be misled if the form of media fails to develop the point in a relevant manner. This is seen with natural disaster articles. The titles will suggest that the article is regarding one thing about the disaster, such as the economic damage caused, however it will fail to thoroughly discuss the damage and merely report on the event.
Breadth- In terms of how the media addresses breadth, it seems as though there is a lack of research into ideas that may contradict the point of view being presented in a piece of media, whether it be a news article, magazine, or TV news broadcast. The main objective seems to be on conveying an idea and sensationalizing it to attract readers eager for quick and easily accessible information. With the issue of Bisphenol A in plastic water bottles in 2008, there was limited research into how this chemical actually entered the substance in a bottle. When the story was conveyed through the media, there was no mention of heat being the necessary component in transferring the harmful chemical, and as such water bottles were removed from shelves and people suddenly stopped using plastic bottles with Bisphenol A in fear of its potential side effects. However, had the media included another point of view or form of research in their publications, people would have realized that a dramatic reaction was not necessary had all the facts been at their disposal. Unfortunately, had the information been present suggesting that Bisphenol A is only harmful if the bottles are heated and the substances in them are of a high fat content, then fewer papers would have been sold, and decreased profit negates the purpose of sensationalized media.
Depth- It often seems that the media is only interested in addressing the symptoms of an issue rather than truly grasping the cause and potential solutions. The amount of time invested in fully understanding the issue at hand is limited, therefore it is difficult for many forms of the media to accurately come up with a solution. This is seen with many articles on global climate change. They only discuss the symptoms of the event, but fail to accurately reach feasible solutions or target the root cause.
Logic- The media usually does well with the logic when conveying information and this is because of the concise manner in which information is transmitted through the media. In a news article, it starts with a clear statement and develops the topic until all of the basic points are covered. Each point does not contradict the last, however in some cases of news in the media; the information is sensationalized to the point where the information is no longer relevant. In order to be logical, the piece of media must have the other components of critical thinking, such as clarity, depth and relevance.
Blog Reflection #2- Is there a danger to a growing disconnect from nature?
In order to fully understand the potential of a growing disconnect from nature as a danger to our environment, one must grasp the factors which connect humans to their environment. There was a time when humans were extremely vulnerable and they relied on their natural environment for all necessities. Humans still rely heavily on the natural environment for their survival (whether they are aware of it or not) however the feeling of vulnerability has diminished, at least for those living in the developed world. I think with the sense of comfort that a high standard of living brings, such as warm homes, full refrigerators, and distracting forms of entertainment, it becomes increasingly arduous to connect with nature in any genuine way. Certain activities such as camping, wilderness retreats, mountain biking trips, yoga and going to the cabin are all ways of being close to nature and experiencing natural beauty away from our isolated homes. Despite this however, we go camping in our air condition vehicles and bring all the comforts of home along with us. My family has a cabin on Clearwater Bay in Lake of the Woods and we have a computer and T.V. and it makes it difficult to reconnect with nature when the distractions and comforts of home are at my disposal. In the society that I have grown up in, the concept of anthropocentric thought has always been dominant. The idea that as human beings, we are in some way entitled to exploit the Earth is rarely objected. More so than anything else, I believe that it is our feeling of superiority which disconnects us from nature and truly being able to appreciate our fragility. We are a minute part of a vast interconnected system of working and living parts. As the human race has developed and multiplied, the functionality of this system has been jeopardized because there is such a vast strain on the Earth of a high demand of finite resources and finite space. The dangers in this growing disconnect between humans and their environment is that there is a lack of understanding in how linked we are with each part of our ecosystem. When farmers apply pesticides to their agricultural fields to increase yield and annual profits, the negative impacts are rarely experienced by the farmer initially, but rather cause harm to waterways and vulnerable species within the region. If agricultural practices were more in tune with environmental issues than the economy, assuredly farmers would make more profit in the long run. This however is not the case, because there is a disconnect between agriculture and nature. In the last hundred years, there has been a significant increase in urbanization. Between the years of 1960 and 1987, farm populations fell by more than fifty percent and rural populations continue to decrease. This is for a variety of reasons; better job opportunities in urban areas and the overall appeal of cities (proximity to grocery stores, work, shopping centres, and entertainment). This decrease in farm populations also signifies a change in how agriculture works. There are no longer small, sustainable farms that cause little to no disturbance to the biodiversity of region. In order to thrive in the agricultural arena, farm sizes have drastically increased. As farm size increases, biodiversity decreases because a monoculture is essentially created whereby only a limited number of species can thrive in a large area. This reduces the ecosystem’s resilience and ability to adapt, making the region extremely vulnerable to any climate changes. Ironically, the push towards urbanization is driving carbon emissions to a new height and altering the climate, which could potentially destroy our main sources of food through desertification and ecosystem destruction. Furthermore, there are many dangers associated with urbanization and how it contributes to disassociation with the environment. The majority of urban centers are covered with asphalt and the limited spaces for parks create fragmentation and isolation of wildlife. Parks are artificial reserves that have man-made boundaries and would never occur naturally. In addition, cities encourage the use of vehicles because often people live in suburbs that are quite a distance from school, work or pleasure. As such, it is arduous to walk through the city to get to a certain destination without it taking hours of one’s time, which is not exactly appealing to most. Additionally, even if one were to walk through the city, the scenery would not be of lush, natural beauty, but of skyscrapers, traffic, and crowded streets. So as more and more people live in cities and drive personal vehicles, they consistently contribute to increasing carbon emissions that are driving our environment to the tipping point. As humans, we rely on the environment for all of the necessities of daily life, such as for resources, air, water and minerals. Yet despite this, gas stations are steadily busy throughout the day with hurried customers eager to continue on with their day, unaware of the cost associated with fuelling their vehicles. Consumer demands drive oil mining and resource exploitation to great heights. Commercial fishermen feel as though they must over fish in order to make the greatest profit, but is this beneficial in the long run when the fish populations have been entirely depleted? If people were truly connected to nature and understood the importance of maintaining a balance between extraction and replenishment, there would be no dangers to the environment. However in present society, the opposite is true and there are far too many accounts of a growing disconnect to the environment to ignore. Overall, in answer to the question is there a danger to a growing disconnect with nature, it is simple. Yes.
Notes Reflections
In the notes, the term Precautionary Principle was mentioned as meaning the responsibility to act on potential environmental threats regardless of lack of full certainty or cost. After watching David Suzuki’s video entitled, The Bottom Line, this concept of the Precautionary Principle takes on a whole new meaning for me. In the video, Mr. Suzuki raises the issue of a disconnect between the economy and the environment and the lack of response to environmental issues due the massive costs associated with solving them. He faced great opposition from the former environment minister, Jim Prentice regarding the importance of protecting the atmosphere as if it were more important that the land itself because it is what makes life possible. Mr. Prentice simply reassured Mr. Suzuki that they were already taking many steps towards protecting their environment through the management of resources. I dare ask, what is the significance in managing the replenishment of resources if other measures are not being taken to prevent toxic emissions into the atmosphere? The atmosphere after all, is the very thing which sustains our resources. At what point will the government and influential leaders take into account the precautionary principle with regards to the protection of our environment? The reality that global climate change is rapidly occurring may not be present in our back yards, which may be the cause for a lack of response from Canadians; however it is a pressing and nearly irreversible issue if nothing is done to prevent its progression. There is a serious and imminent threat, with years of scientific study but despite this, prevention to environmental degradation is not at the forefront of economic liability.
Sustainable development is defined as being the ability to meet the needs of a present population without jeopardizing the ability for future generations to meet the needs of their own. I recently read an article in a newspaper entitled The Leader and it is created by the agricultural equipment manufacturer, John Deere. The article was entitled, “Agriculture Doing Its Part for Sustainability” by Don Borgman and at the time I was writing an essay on how modern agriculture is reducing biodiversity, so I thought it would be an interesting article to read to gain perspective from another point of view on my research topic. I read the article with an open mind, largely because I come from a family of cattle farmers so I know how valuable sustaining economic profit is to the livelihood of the family farm. So it did not surprise me to read in this article about the resistant many local farmers have towards the concept of sustainability in the environment. Farmers and their families have grown up on the land, worked the land for long, back-breaking hours, they have lived through seasons of drought and too much rain, they have lived on this land and it could easily be argued that they are more connected with the land than anyone else. So what right do environmentalists and scientists have to tell them how to operate their farmland, when clearly it has been successful in the past? As said by Don Borgman, “Some in agriculture can’t believe their commitment to the land, their husbandry of the livestock they produce, or their dedication to the environment around them is being questioned and often ignored.” As with any environmental issue, the values of the people living on the land must be taken into account as well as their economic livelihood. For that reason, the above claim is entirely reasonable. However, given the aspects of critical thinking, I had to wonder if this article contained any depth or breadth regarding the issue of sustainability. So what proof is there that agriculture is actually doing its part for sustainability? Don Borgman claims that insecticide use has fallen approximately 80% since 1990 and herbicide use has declined by 25%. This is due largely to the fact that crop species have been genetically modified to be resistant to insects and other potential threats that could minimize yield. The reduction in pesticide use is not something to look upon lightly, which is a large step towards reducing the amount of contamination in surrounding areas due to harmful chemicals applied to crops. Despite this however, creating monocultures is not sustainable development by any means. Genetically altering crop species to suit the needs of humans is interfering with the natural make up of our ecosystem and it could potentially destroy the biodiversity of a region. If hundreds or even thousands of the same type of crop are grown in a region, this limits the range of species that can live there. So not only is biodiversity reduced, but the ecosystem becomes less resilient and less adaptable to potential changes; such as changes in climate or a super pest. The new genetically modified crop may attract a new predator species that could kill the crop and other species in the region. Ultimately, in order for agriculture to be sustainable, biodiversity must be restored and preserved at any cost, and small, diverse farms must be favoured over large industry farms that threaten the collapse of agriculture as a whole.
In class, we discussed the human and environment connection and the theories of imbalance. One of the theories of imbalance was ignorance. I found this to be particularly interesting because the reason for a lack of action towards solving environmental problems is that most people simply lack adequate understanding of the issues. Additionally, they do not know the consequences of their actions. I take the bus to school every day however I am always very jealous of the students who can bring their cars to school every day and not have to wait for busses, especially in cold Winnipeg winters. As we were talking about ignorance in class I began to realize that I was being very naive in my wishes to drive a car to school. Sure, I could pay $500 for the year for parking, hundreds of dollars in gas, put many miles on my car, but would I care? Not in the slightest because I would be getting to school much faster and more conveniently. I never for once stopped to think about the consequences of these actions. Consequences which I have learned about for many years, but never would actually have to face in the short term. That being additional carbon emissions into the atmosphere. The consequences are not localized so I do not see myself as a contributing factor to the problem, as I am sure many of my classmates do not either. We know the consequences of CO2 in our atmosphere, but even then do we take action and not drive our cars? I really wonder what it will take before changes actually begin to take place and are implemented into peoples’ every day lives.
