Blog 4-- December 2, 2015

Investigate the options and end fate of your household’s e-waste.  Discuss where and how you will dispose of this waste and your future electronics purchase plans in relation to the waste they will one day become.

Upon investigation I discovered that my households e-waste collection, as I like to call it, consists of multiple out of use cell phones per person (5 individuals residing in the same residence), broken head phones and a broken wireless keyboard and mouse set. As a result of collecting all of my households e-waste to see just how much junk we had around the house I took it upon myself to find businesses that support e-waste collection. Since I am going home for the holidays in a short time I looked for a business within my home town that would take the waste. I discovered that the MTS store in my home town, as well as The Source and other electronic dealers collect and ship the items to be recycled. Over the holidays I will be properly disposing of all of these items. I discussed with my room mates our class lesson on recycling electronics and where these things end up and the difficulty it takes to break them down. We discussed as a household that we would do our research and make wiser purchases in the future, meaning that we will buy products that last as opposed to buying cheap products that last only a month long. (My one room mate has been notorious this year for going through sets of cheap headphones). Two of my room mates are also very computer savy and have actually built their desk top computers from scratch by ordering individual parts. One of them was looking in to getting a new computer, but instead has decided to just replace the individual part necessary to alleviate the problem. We are currently looking into where we can drop computer parts off for e-waste recycling in hopes that it will not end up in the landfill.

What am I doing to promote sustainability and happiness in my life? What would I like to do? What do I pledge to do?

Some plants from my indoor garden. All of my plants have been planted in second use containers. ie. old jars, a broken bowl that was no longer going to be used and a clay pot that was otherwise going to be thrown away.

Lately I have been taking the steps towards limiting my consumerism by doing less shopping all together. I am tired of being controlled by the economy and marketing campaigns for "stuff" we simply don't need. We buy things just to fill up our house, but what are the true uses of these items? Nothing. To look pretty. So instead of investing in "stuff", over the past year I have been making an indoor garden to decorate our house. All of our furniture has come from past users, my parents and siblings, and we have not purchased any new furniture as a result. I really enjoy this way of living because it takes such a large burden off of your shoulders. I am no longer easily swayed by marketing campaigns and always assess the durability and longevity of an item before purchase. Another step I took this year is re-evaluating my Christmas list that my friends and relatives wanted so badly to get their hands on. Instead of asking for stuff, I asked for time. If they insisted on real physical items I gave them ideas like new smoke detectors as we have an insufficient amount in our house. My in laws have even jumped on board with this no stuff Christmas idea that I have been promoting and have decided not to make any purchases for the holidays this year. Instead they wish to make valuable and usable gifts like knitting scarves and dishcloths. What I would like to do in the future is really make a strong effort to cut gift giving and receiving out of my life. Over the past year I really learned the value of time and nature and spending and sharing it with loved ones through my diagnosis with cancer. No material item in the world can replace the connection you get with a human being; that face to face time. I pledge to spend more time with my family and friends by going on walks together rather than sitting around at home in the living room wasting energy around a bunch of products that will end up being e-waste. I pledge that I will walk to stores with my room mates to do our grocery shopping as not to waste fuel, and promote a connected way of living as opposed to a disconnected way. I pledge to unplug for the evening by 8 oclock and plug in to family time.

What are your primary concerns about the oceans? What if anything do you plan to do about it? 

My primary concerns about the oceans are that the wildlife and plant life are being drastically affected by the amount of plastic going in to the oceans. It disgusts me that animals who don't know any better end up consuming our waste and dying because of it. Humans should never have being this careless and reckless with our production of plastics and the disposal of plastics. In the past I have participated in minor beach clean ups on Vancouver Island with my relatives out in BC. Part of my plan to try to help the issue is advocating the use of face washes and body scrubs sans micro-beads. I have already started to spread the word about these plastic micro-beads and how they don't degrade through water treatment and end up in our water ways, to family and friends. Most have taken this into serious consideration and wish to implement a no micro-bead purchasing style.

Ecosystems and Human Well-being

This reading addresses the issue of the degradation of the earths ecosystems and the issues that have arisen as a result of human interference with the ecosystems. While we benefit from the use and over use of our ecosystems to develop our economy and ways of life, we need to truly assess where the things such as water, food, timber, fibre and fuel are coming from and how that effects our ecosystems and the impact we are having on them by our consumerist views. While we only see the true degradation of these ecosystems in less developed parts of the world where they strictly rely on the land to live I believe that we will being to see these depletions in generations to come. Change needs to be made to alleviate the burden of our actions on this planet and our ecosystems, but that doesn't only mean change in our individual actions it means a global change. Governments need to get on board as well as major producers of all products; food, fuel, and the catch all term "stuff" included, to make a big and needed change when it comes to the impact we have on our ecosystems. Why is it difficult to manage ecosystems sustainably? It is difficult because the world is caught up in consuming and spending. Our world revolves around stuff and taking from the planet. Individuals and governments see no profit and little value in salvaging ecosystems and our environment. There is never enough money in their budget to set aside for the important things that keep this earth spinning, but there is always plenty of money to invest in things that will make this world cease to exist. We continue to live in ways that fuel the fire of "it's the next generations problem, they can clean up our mess" when the problem is now and the solution needs to happen now. 

Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services

This reading discusses specifically loss of marine biodiversity loss, and states that is directly caused by exploitation, pollution, habitat destruction and climate change changing biogeochemistry. The reading shows us that marine ecosystems where there is a higher diversity of fish and nutrients there is more stability allowing the ecosystem to be more resistant to change. If these species cannot recover from change they can no longer feed the human population and can no longer flourish in their environment.  Why are commercial fisheries in decline? I believe commercial fisheries are in decline because we are simply over fishing. Where they used to go out on to the water and catch thousands, if not more, fish and were relentless in their catching, they have bled the ecosystem dry. Fish cannot reproduce fast enough for their fishing habits. Laws on limiting commercial fisheries in how much they can catch has also been a set back that I have encountered in the news. Commercial fishing is no longer sustainable. 

Living Downstream 

This is me on my last
day of chemotherapy,
the day I won. 

The author of this article recounts her diagnosis of bladder cancer and how she wondered why these kind of gene mutations could happen. Even though there are known carcinogens being released in to the environment and that some people are more exposed to these carcinogens than others, the risk factors are not translated to being an effective campaign to prevent diseases. The author discusses where these carcinogens come from, and that they are in the rivers, in the air, dump sites, ground water etc.  She discusses how the world has blinders on to the effects the environmental toxins has in producing cancer, and that we are obsessed with heredity and genetics. She goes on to say that "two percent means that 10,940 people in the United States die each year from environmentally caused cancers"(p139) and continues with the fact that that is 3X the number of non smokers that die each year of lung cancer as a part of being exposed to secondhand smoke Why is it hard to tell whether-and how much-a chemical is carcinogenic in humans?I believe that it would be hard to tell because you cannot directly expose humans to carcinogens in a lab study. By the time the individuals realize they have cancer, they've been exposed to the carcinogens, daily, maybe weekly at an uncalculated rate and then we look back after our diagnosis we say hey, why did this happen? and make assumptions on how it was caused. Rarely can you prove how the cancer was caused. These assumptions are made by estimating how much and for how long you were exposed to the carcinogens but you can never know for sure. I have personal experience with this with my own diagnosis of Hodgkin's Lymphoma and this article really resonates with me. While it was highly likely that the uncontrolled burning of garbage and over exposure to chemicals during my summer job was the likely cause of my fast developing cancer, we can never know for sure. 

 Our Stolen Future
This reading discusses POP's and endocrine disrupter's that we are now finding in the environment and in animals and their hindered ability to reproduce and carry out regular biological and hormonal functions. Studies have been shown that because of the shorter life span of the animals, the contaminants are appearing earlier rather than later like they do in humans. Some warnings have been issued to humans of the effects in animals and how it relates to human health and development. Is cancer the only health effect of environmental contaminants that should concern us? No. While cancer is a large health concern, there are many other health concerns and negative health effects coming from the environment that need to be addressed. It is important to be educated in all of the effects big or small and they all need to be taken as seriously as one another.
Environmental Justice for All
 This reading is about minority groups that have been shown to receive less environmental protection thanm majority groups with higher power positions in affluent countries and communities. Dumping grounds and waste sites are often made where lower class citizens are living. For example, the tar sands dumping into the river which goes downstream into aboriginal communities in Alberta. It demonstrates carefully environmental injustice taking place around the world. What is environmental justice?  Environmental justice means not only one minority group takes on the environmental burdens like pollutants and dumping grounds. It means that everyone, every class, every race, every person from every walk of earth is responsible. We do not place the worlds trash in one persons back yard. It is equal burden for everyone and by doing so there is a weight lifted from everyone shoulders and it is distributed equally. Uprisings should not have to occur for people to realize that putting all of our waste on one group is not okay and it should be more widely talked about as to where our garbage and waste and pollutants are truly going and the impact it can have on surrounding communities.

Blog 3- November 13, 2015

Polar bears swimming

Journey to Churchill exhibit,
Winnipeg Zoo, 
Summer 2015

What role, if any, should zoos play in conservation and education?

I believe that zoos should be the number one line of education to the public on wild animals, given that their information is coming from animal based research of animals in the wild and not those living in captivity. Zoos along with organizations such as Manitoba conservation should be providing us, first and foremost, with information about local animals, what to do upon encountering an animal, but information on exotic animals as well.

Diving for food.

Zoo trainer and young
polar bear. The trainer
was using a clicker
to train the bear
not to claw at the
enclosures door.

Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos? If so, what size or type of animal or zoo?

I think that it is ethical provided that the animals that are in the zoos were orphaned or would otherwise perish in the wild without human intervention. If the animal was born in captivity and has little to no viability for living in the wild or being released into the wild; I believe that they should be kept there. Another must have in zoos, for me, is that the animals are given adequate space in their enclosure that is as close to the size and nature of their natural habitat as possible or is at least proven to be safe for the animals mental and physical health. Zoos must ensure that stereotypic patterns are monitored that they provide the animals with adequate stimulation that they would otherwise receive in the wild. 

Do you enjoy visiting zoos?

Yes I do very much enjoy visiting zoos. Does it leave me feeling conflicted? The answer is also, yes. Zoos are not an ideal place for the animals to be, in a lot of cases, however I do feel they play an important role in public education. You see animals you may never get to see within your life time at the zoo; but does this make it right? Not necessarily. This question is very much circular and there is no, one, perfect, clean cut answer. 

 Consider your food system: What do you like about it? What do you dislike? Consider taste, nutrition, cost, equity and environmental issues?

What I like about my food system is that we rarely throw away any food. Living with 4 room mates, there are usually no leftovers to very few which someone will have eaten by lunch time the next day. What I dislike is that I honestly have no idea where my food actually comes from. Being a student, we keep a lot of canned goods and packaged noodles around that we eat for lunches and snacks here and there. We usually buy lunch meat, lettuce and other items to pack fresh lunches for school and we always make a "family dinner" together. We split the costs of all of our food, so our food bill ends up being a lot cheaper all around. However, for the packaged foods, I have no idea where they come in from or if they are even Canadian. For fresh vegetables, fruit and meat, I am also very unaware. Unfortunately, whenever I shop I am always looking for the best deal. I have a very limited student budget, so the cheaper the better. I did splurge a lot more for fresh fruit and vegetables and was looking in to more local products this past year while undergoing chemotherapy, but since then my effort has dwindled. Unknowingly, rather, without thinking, I have more than likely been contributing and putting money back in to factory farms, imported fruits and vegetables (out of season for Manitoba), consuming foods filled with preservatives, antibiotics, pesticides and to producers who export food from all around the world who are making unnecessary contributions to pollution and climate change. Over all, this is upsetting to me. I want to live sustainably and eat local foods. I want to be able to consume foods with less antibiotics, pesticides and preservatives and be able to trace the farmer from which the food is coming from. I am just unsure about how to do this on such a limited budget. 

Activity: 

FOOD, Inc

I made the decision to re-watch the documentary FOOD, Inc for my blog activity. We watched this documentary in high school and I remember then, feeling uneasy about where my food came from. This film gave me the same feeling today. What especially hit home for me was how we use corn and corn bi products as filler in so many foods, and not just foods but other products such as diapers. Just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD do something, like this.
When we buy cheap food, coming from these industrialized factory farms, we are hurting the genuine farmer. We are supporting a market of dirt cheap and illegal work that the companies are endorsing, we are contributing to "farmers" who are feeding us bacteria, steroid, antibiotic ridden meats and produce. On top of this the majority of the population doesn't even know. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE FAMILY FARM? If we know so much about these factory farms, why have they not been shut down? No amount of illnesses, injuries or deaths caused by these factory farms who are producing foods for one of few major companies in this world, nor the government will or can shut them down. Why? Economy. We want dirt cheap food. We cannot afford to change the ways these factories run things now. They have forcibly shut down many family owned, honest farms, where they know what goes in to the food and what comes out of their land. I recently decided to try to trace back some of the products we purchase weekly in our household, to find out where the foods come from. YOU CAN'T. You are lead to link after link after link and its never ending. You never get a definitive answer. I did the same trying to trace back my family farms seed, who we sold it to and where it went after it was sold; it was the same, link after link with no answer. Other than most of the seed ends up being used in products that are only sold outside of the US and Canada.
Sometimes I find the world we live in disgusting for the fact that the companies that have now taken over our lives by controlling our food, do not care about our health and safety or that of their employees. The one thing that should be over regulated and have all of the time in the world put in to it is our food. Its what we live off of and consume.. yet we aren't getting the best of the best and its 2015! The faster is not always the better and I feel like the world needs to smarten up and become aware of this fact before we can no longer bring back honest, healthy foods in to our lives.

Readings

Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?

This reading answers this question: yes. It discusses how consumption has exceeded the rate of production when it comes to products such as grain. What we don't think about is that we are not only consuming grain when we purchase products such as bread, but we are also feeding the cow and the pig, etc which then must be slaughtered and turned into the meat that we consume. With water shortages, the dramatic loss of topsoil and rising temperatures it becomes more and more difficult to keep up with the world's demand for grain.

  We are in a state in which we demand more food and lower and lower costs to the consumer, despite the detriment to the company. Governments cannot provide and promise our food security, which we can see happening more clearly over seas in places like Afghanistan. Many countries have began to withhold their exported grain and foods to try and provide for themselves as local food is becoming more and more scarce. The text provides this as a way to begin solving the issue; we need to stabilize the worlds population and find a solution to poverty simultaneously. We need to set out a world goal in which we are water aware and topsoil aware and quit wasting what we have before it is gone forever. This is what the author calls "Plan B: Our Only Option"

Critical thinking: According to Lester Brown, demand for food is growing faster than the supply.What are the effects of this trend likely to be? How can we prevent the worst effects? 

If we continue with the trend of having such high demand for food, while the supply becomes more and more limited we will begin to have food shortages which will more than definitely cause conflict around the world. There will be deaths and governmental blame that will fuel the fire surrounding the issue. The only way to prevent its worst effects would be to implement the authors "Plan B" as I discussed above; Limit our topsoil waste, water waste, find a solution for poverty and overpopulation and become a sustainable society as a whole. 

Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation

This reading highlights how women's knowledge and contribution as farmers has been and remains overlooked. It is considered to be outside the norm and outside of women's roles for a woman to help in the production of our food as farmers themselves. Women have the skills required to do such work; they are knowledgeable about the seed, weather conditions and growing conditions that are necessary to grow food. The women who are taking part in this activity are very much qualified to do so, yet we are still overlooked.

What is an "ecofeminist"?

Ecofeminism examines the connection between women and nature. Women and nature come together in that women are the nurturer and nature is the nurtured. This especially applies to this reading when discussing women and their contribution to farming and agriculture. As said above, women doing so are very much qualified to farm and have the knowledge necessary to yield a crop. Ecofeminsim also relates to this reading in that women are the invisible farmers. Farming goes outside of "women's roles" and is "beyond a woman's knowledge". Even though we have this knowledge and it comes from cultural and scientific practices, because they are being done by women it has resulted in women's farming being labelled as by nature for nature. Like it is some inborn thing that we are able to do and that we are just able to relate to nature. This allows for women to be undermined by men in society, as if our agriculture and farming is less valuable than that of a man. What I understand from ecofeminism is that ecofeminists fight for women's rights and also the environment simultaneously. Women have the right to participate in farming and agriculture and farms and growth need the love and care we are able to provide to produce healthy food for ourselves and others. We are one and one with nature yet women are judged based on their gender rather than qualifications, and that is what they are fighting for. 

Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems

This reading from the text discusses human impacts on the earth's ecosystems and how we are affecting the resources of our planet. Humans have not only physically changed the face of the earth with new developments but we have also chemically changed our planet with our high levels of carbon dioxide.  We, as humans, are exploiting the land for ourselves by converting the land from forests to farms and causing chemical imbalances in the ecosystem. The ocean cannot keep up with carbon dioxide uptake and neither can our plants; our bio-systems and ecosystems  are taking a big hit. There are far too many humans on this earth, and the earth cannot provide resources for such an immense population.

Would it help to reduce the human impact on the Earth if we could reduce the human population?

Yes! It would drastically help the earth to reduce the human population. We cannot keep reproducing expecting the earth to be able to provide for the exponential growth. As a Canadian I never realized just how much space we actually have up here, but if you take a look over seas in places like China and Bangladesh, they are living wall to wall people. Despite how much the human race tries to solve our production issues with new fast growing products the earth just cannot keep up. We need to stop thinking on how to develop the next best thing in solving our issues and revert back to the fundamental issue. We are simply demanding too much of the earth with our extreme population. We need to stop creating more, thinking we can get more. The more we create, the less we have and that is something we don't realize living in the 21st century where developing a quick fix is easier and more cost effective than fixing the underlying issue. We are destroying and depleting this earth for future generations and once its gone we cannot get it back. Reducing the population by putting limits on how many children a family should be allowed to have is a start. However there are a lot of ethical issues surrounding the problem that need to be addressed. Starting with education on the issue and providing people with the knowledge about the dire situation the planet is in, would definitely be a start in implementing new rules and strategies for how we reproduce. I find it sad, but I honestly do not see any other way other than to reduce our population in seeing a future for this planet. With less people we would pollute less, have to produce less, there would be less and less new developments and it would all around be better for not only the planet but for the people and animals on this planet as well.

Blog 2- October 23

What is the Purpose of Nature?

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis

Summary: The section of the texts demonstrates the way that humans ignorantly abuse nature. We cut down trees and entire forests, we allow the development of pastures in which cattle over graze, we waste immense amounts of water through irrigation. Us as humans make changes that in turn effect the nature around us, that we do not even realize that we are affecting. Technology and science are great developments among humans but are almost always detrimental to our environment. We treat ourselves as the dominant species without realizing that our contribution to the destruction to the environment will eventually be our own demise as we are apart of a system; one cannot exist without the other. This section of the text also discusses how Christianity is a harmful religion in regards to the environment and in many ways encourages man to exploit our available resources. 

The purpose of nature is not what we make of it. We have made nature into something we can steal from without any means of replenishment, something we can exploit and use to our advantage and to its disadvantage. Nature should be cherished, used only for what we absolutely require from it and no more. What we take should ultimately be replenished, not by some greater being that ourselves, but by the individual. What you use, you put back. What we have done to our environment over the years cannot be undone, we've abused this earth to a point of no return unless drastic changes can be made almost immediately and even then it will not ever return to its natural state. We need to being working with nature instead of constantly working against it. The true purpose of nature is to be, grow wild, and flourish while we thrive along side it not against it.

What is the basic lesson of Aldo Leopold's "Thinking Like a Mountain"?

A Sand County Almanac excerpt

Summary: A Sand County Almanac and Thinking Like a Mountain illustrate an interactive story which allows us to realize our true role in nature and how each subgroup of nature be it animals, plants and humans have such a great impact and reliance on one another. It demonstrates our power as humans and how we need to use that power and our knowledge combined to help our ecosystems rather than harm them. Take what we need and no more to allow the natural actions of nature take and live our their courses to provide a sustainable environment. It is also an inside look to one man's experience and how he learned a valuable lesson about nature and its over all system of well being

The basic lesson of of "Thinking Like a Mountain" is that one intricate part of the system is not able to thrive without the others. When we become ignorant of our power and abuse that power to eliminate what we see to be a nuisance we are ignoring the fact that we are a part of a bigger system, one thing cannot be without the other. The lesson is just that, to "Think Like a Mountain". In doing so we set ourselves a side and look at the bigger picture, without taking action until we see all that is there and all that can be effected. We take a bigger stance and hopefully start to understand that all that we see relies on each and every aspect of nature and that a simple imbalance can throw us off course.

Given that projections of global climate change are not certain, should we act now? If not, how long should we wait?

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis

Summary: This section of the text discusses the driving forces behind climate change, emphasizing fossil fuel use as a key contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, nitrous oxide increases due to agriculture, and methane as big factors contributing to the harm of our planet. Changes caused by increased greenhouse gasses and emissions have made for an increase in global temperature, sea level rise, the fast melting of glaciers, snow and ice, unusual weather patterns such as heat waves followed by heavier than usual precipitation patterns and more. This reading demonstrates our increased and increasing knowledge of the effects of climate change as well as the increased negative human impact on this phenomenon. It also provides us with projections and estimates of natural and human impacts as we go into the future.

Should we act now or how long should we wait? To me the answer is obvious. Why wait until something so precious and irreplaceable is destroyed before we take action? Acting now is truly our only option and frankly, our only hope in keeping our beloved planet intact for future generations. We simply cannot afford to sit back while such harmful effects are taking place. Prevention is always easier than recovering from the aftermath. Unfortunately I am not sure how long it will take human beings to realize what needs to be done. I can only hope that this realization happens before its too late and we are among the aftermath of our actions.

Over the years, society has spend enormous amounts of money to build the current energy system. Why does this make it difficult to change to a new energy system?

A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030

Summary: This section of the text provides us with alternative eco-friendly ways of achieving the amounts of energy we need to power this earth, sets out a timeline in which it would be possible to make the change, discusses the amount of energy required to adequately power the lives of citizens world wide as our population increases in number, how much the change itself would cost and how the new technologies themselves would have a near  zero emissions rate over their life cycle. While this new system is completely achievable it is completely in the hands of our higher up governments to ultimately commit to the system and their willingness to invest in such a drastic change in benefit of our precious planet.

The amount of money we have put into our current energy system makes it difficult for society to change to a new system for the following reasons: We simply do not like change. Without being forced to, we don't want to. The way we've been doing it for so long is what we know and it's easier to stick with what we know than to consider an alternative. We have invested so much money in regards to the way we supply our own energy and we know that it works. It is difficult for us to accept such a big change and another great investment when what we are currently doing is not broken and in the eyes of many, is not going anywhere. What truly needs to be considered is if we continue burning coal, using fossil fuels, natural gas, etcetera and contribute to climate change, there will no longer be a safe earth to live on. We will run out of these finite methods of powering our lives and what will we do then? We will be scrambling wishing we had committed to a change when it was more feasible and not so dire.

Activity

Consider your reliance on fossil fuels. Are you comfortable with your level of dependence? Do you feel that this is sustainable for the next 10 years? Are there steps you would like to take to reduce this reliance?

I personally am uncomfortable with my level of dependence on fossil fuels; not because I believe that I am a heavy consumer but because I am reliant on this resource while understanding that one day, certainly within my life span, we will not have this resource to fall back on. This also answers the question of whether or not I feel that this way of life will be sustainable for the next 10 years; it is not. While I do my best to limit my consumption, car pool any chance I can, walk to school each day and truly considered the environment when purchasing a more fuel efficient car, it is simply not enough when discussing sustainability and the future of fossil fuels. While I feel like I am doing all that is possible right now for my position, being a student and having to travel quite some distance whether it is to go back home to visit family now and again or making trips to the grocery store every other week, I would very much like to reduce my fossil fuel reliance. I wish to do so in the future by giving my input to the city of Winnipeg in regards to their fuel consumption in running city transit and starting the discussion in investing in eco-friendly, perhaps electric run buses like I have seen in Montreal. In the future I would also love to own an electric car, myself. I would absolutely love to be apart of a small individual change as well as a larger change that would better this busy city.

In-class Blog Questions

1) In class we were introduced to the national park of Wapusk. While discussing whether or not it would be possible to allow the public access to this beautiful national environment I immediately came to the conclusion that it would not be possible to maintain not only the beauty that the national park has to offer but also the homes of the thriving wildlife. A dual mandate unfortunately cannot be met. This precious national park houses many species including but not nearly limited to fox, polar bear, caribou and over a thousand species of plants that are miraculously able to survive the harsh season changes of the north.1 While it is a blessing to be able to visit national and provincial parks across Canada, I have yet to experience a park that has not been negatively impacted by the presence of humans. The infrastructure introduced to allow the access such as roads, buildings for safety and housing, the pollution introduced by vehicles and machinery required to build and provide tours as well as noise pollution are all detrimental to the natural environment and to the wildlife who naturally occupy that environment. Not to mention the precautions that would need to be put in place to protect visitors such as fences which disrupt plant species, migration patterns of animals, feeding, breeding and natural behaviours. To put it simply, the closer we get the further we push the wildlife away. I have realized through my experiences with nature, in particular experiences with Parks Canada, is that humans and natural do not go together. The more humans are introduced to a natural environment, the more we tamper with it making it no longer natural. Public access to this park would bring it to its knees. The only way to keep this National Park safe from human destruction is to maintain Parks' current actions. This includes allowing access for small, non invasive research groups who have the well being of Wapusk in mind and NOT allowing any public access. Perhaps the installation of a live feed camera could be considered which would allow the public non invasive access to the park so they too could experience the beauty of the wildlife during migration and the unique seasonal changes that Wapusk has to offer. Any more access than this would cause too much disruption. 

                                         

"This is the UN's Globally Harmonized System sign for carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens, respiratory sensitizers and substances with target organ toxicity." 2

2) Over the past few weeks the focus of the class has been the Alberta Tar Sands. This is a topic that is discussed on a regular basis not only in class but on the news. There are many issues surrounding the Alberta Tar Sands, the most focused on point is it's effects on the Canadian economy. However, there are much more concerning topics that need to be addressed when it comes to the Tar Sands, such as its effects on the environment and the surrounding communities. The topic most emphasized in the class were the effects on the health of those on the Fort Chipewan first nation, downstream from the Tar Sands. This discussion particularly hit home for me because of their increased risk of cancer, as I was recently diagnosed with cancer that had a high probability of being caused by external factors such as chemicals and pollutants. This really got me thinking about the risks of drilling for oil and the carcinogens and pollutants we are releasing into the environment and how this communities proximity to the Tar Sands is not only dangerous but terrifying. I can only hope that the Alberta Tar Sands and the Alberta government will compensate those effected negatively, health wise, from the Tar Sands by relocating the people living downstream and aiding in any possible way with making them comfortable and providing comprehensive health care. They did not choose the Tar Sands, they should not have to pay in any way, shape or form for the damage done.

The future I would like to see for the Tar Sands is that they do not make any further developments. Understanding that the Tar Sands have an immense contribution to the Canadian economy and house many jobs for Canadians I would hope that they would not cease drilling for those reasons alone. However, I would hope that we would not explore any further for oil. Finish what we've started, but take no more than what we have already found. Once our already drilled land dries up, I would wish that, that would be the end of the Tar Sands and that we could begin to rebuild, regrow and salvage what is left the land that has already been destroyed and contaminated. It is not possible to take this environment and turn it back to what is was before the Tar Sands but repairing some of the damage would be a good start. 

Footnotes
1. Canada, Parks. "Common Menu Bar Links." Parks Canada. December 21, 2012. Accessed October 21, 2015. http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/mb/wapusk/natcul/natcul1d.aspx. 


2."Carcinogen Hazard Symbol." About.com Education. Accessed October 21, 2015. http://chemistry.about.com/od/healthsafety/ig/Laboratory-Safety-Signs/Carcinogen-Hazard-Symbol.htm#step-heading. 

Blog 1 - September 30, 2015

Reading Summaries:
1) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
This reading is about the impact humans have on their societies and complexity of a societies collapse. It demonstrates that there simply is no black and white answer to the demise of a society. It stresses the human impact on the environment and how it could contribute to OUR societies potential future collapse. Which brings me to the critical thinking question; Are societies that damage their environment doomed to collapse? Is ours? The most simple answer to this question is, yes. All actions have their consequences and judging by the way we live our lives today we are setting ourselves up for failure. We are too uneducated on how to undo or cease what harm we are causing to our environment, how we've contributed to the warming of our planet and how we've increased climate change. No society is safe from a collapse, especially any that exist in our damaged world today. 
2)Human Carrying Capacity
This reading is about the earth, it's resources that support us, how population growth effects the planet and what the planet itself can support in regards to human population. Critical thinking question number one asks: what is carrying capacity? Carrying capacity is the amount of humans that the earth can support.
3)Tragedy of the Commons
This reading is about the fact that the human race believes that everything, including our impact on the planet can be solved with the development of more technology. It stresses that humans tend to add more thinking that it outweighs the damage; what we have forced the earth to lack. The truth is the more we add is the more we take away. There is no give and take it is just take in the end. Question one asks: why should people not have as many children as possible? This again plays in to the fact that the more we add, the more we take away. More people equals the more resources needed from the planet to allow those people to survive. With the rate that humans over use their resources and take more than is needed to survive, the less there will ultimately be for future generations. Human beings are digging themselves deeper and deeper in to a hole and one day, we will find the bottom. What will we do then?

Activity- Spend one hour in silence with nature.
For this activity I went out to spend some time on my family's farm. I strayed from the borders of our property to the rows of trees that surround a small dirt road. As a child I spent many hours walking along and exploring this area. This experience to me is unlike any other. I observed the changes that have come to the area throughout my life time such as the removal of some trees and the addition of gravel to this once natural dirt path. I listened to the crickets and the wind as it rustled through the leaves of this "tree tunnel" as I used to see it as a child. I noticed the leaves and all their glory as they had already began to change colour with the season. I noticed a lack of animal prints (deer, raccoon) in the moist dirt, but also observed an abundance of birds within the trees. What once was a pathway that always encompassed you with shade, despite the time of day, now allowed for the sunlight to shine through in many places. 
This experience really opened up my eyes to just how much a small and deeply loved piece of nature can change over the course of 10 years. While revisiting one of my favourite places this brought me immense amounts of joy, but also sadness for the fact that one day this sanctuary could very well disappear before my very eyes.

What promotes human connection to nature?

I believe that our busy lives promote a strong human connection to nature. The city life is something that deprives us from nature. Whether we work a 9 to 5 job, go to school, or spend our days at home we are still (for the most part) in the city. Encompassed by a concrete jungle, we often get lost in the chaos and confusion only thinking about what comes next and how to get there fast. This busy life style drives the human race somewhere quiet, somewhere peaceful. To me this means getting away somewhere green, somewhere where the air isn't ridden with the smell of exhaust fumes and cigarette smoke. Somewhere where there is no hum of computers, clicking of keyboards or buzzing of incoming messages. Somewhere (preferably) warm, by the water, among the trees, in a field where you can see for miles; anywhere but the city. Escaping to the comforts of nature gives the human race a break, a chance to relax, a chance to slow down and above all chance to take a deep breath and take it all in.


What promotes disconnection from nature?

Something that has severely altered our world is the rise of technology; most of all the use of cell phones. You can't go out anywhere without seeing someone glued to a screen, unaware of their current surroundings and lost in the virtual world. With cell phones you literally carry the world in your hands. You have access to everything in an instant, so why bother with nature? Why bother going out of your way to capture that beautiful shot of a sunset when you can take one off of the internet and use it as your lock screen photo. Why go out and plant trees when you can order a sweater online that also plants ten trees for you? Why go out and help the environment by cleaning up garbage when you can just pay an environmental fee when you purchase food and water in plastic packaging? Why go camping when you can listen to a pre recorded copy of the sounds of nature? Technology makes it so easy for us to forget about REAL nature and put our duties to this once beautiful earth of ours up on the shelf.


Is there a danger to a growing disconnect from nature?

The dangers that follow this ever increasing disconnect from nature are as follows:

1) We are starting to forget about nature and the fact that without this planet and its resources we have NOTHING. We can't live without this planet and all that it provides for us; food, water, and the ability to create shelter.

2) We are ruining the planet with our wants. We are so disconnected that our constant drive to have bigger and better infrastructure or the next best iPhone, bigger cars etc consumes us. We are taking so much more than we need from this planet to live and draining its resources. In turn we are replacing its resources with excessive harmful emissions and leaving the planet to fend for itself. We have become blind to the harm we are inflicting upon the earth.

What do your environmental ethics lie? 
Anthropocentric? Biocentric? Ecocentric?

My ethical standpoint on the environment lies in both anthropocentric and ecocentric ideologies.

I believe both of these standpoints hold some merit but only in certain aspects. For example, my views from the anthropocentric standpoint are as follows. Humans profit the most from what the environment has to offer. We have use the biggest variety of its resources that you can't deny that we have made ourselves the largest consumers on the planet. I also believe that it is important to preserve this earth for our future generations so that they too can prosper from what this planet has to offer. However that is as far as my anthropocentric views go, and where my ecocentric ideas come in. Even though humans are the biggest contributor to the destruction of the planet, our individual species and individual selves are just one tiny part of the picture. This is the reality of our existence that humans just don't seem to understand. Everything we do does not just effect other humans, it effects many bio-systems such as plants animals and virtually every species. We are not the only thing we need to be worrying about when everything is interconnected in so many ways. Saving the planet may begin with us but it does not end with us.


Allison Dengate
7739207