Lori Uhacz
Warner Pacific College
January 11, 2012
Each and every day, we are one step closer to running out of natural resources. Every country in the world vies for one resource or another whether it is gas, natural gas, hydro power, crops or a variety of other things. We are becoming so dependent on oil especially in America and places like China and India that before we know it, these resources will be gone. We as a society cannot stand by and watch our precious resources be depleted. We have a responsibility to protect them and the land around them and to see that they are not abused.
In the Pacific Northwest, we have large forests full of beautiful old trees. Because the need for timber is so great, we are at risk of losing some of the most amazing forests we have. Yes, the U.S. Forestry Service has taken measure to insure the protection of many parts of Oregon and Washington, not everything is safe however. Deforestation has been come a problem. Our book defines deforestation on page 318 as “the clearing and loss of forests” (Brennan & Withgott, 2011). From personal experience I have seen how deforestation has affected the beautiful Oregon landscape. If you drive through the coast range on the way to say Cannon Beach, you can see how over logging has completely changed how everything looks. To me some places are not even nice to look at, let alone be a place for wildlife to live and survive.
In other places around the world, deforestation has become a much bigger problem than it is here in America. In an article for the Washington Post online, Joshau Partlow talks about the deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil. Parts of the “Bom Futuro National Forest” are being destroyed despite efforts by people like Antonio Elson Portela “an environmental official responsible for protecting the forest from settlers and loggers (Partlow, 2009). As members of a global society we need to find a way to protect these forests. Partlow states in his article that “through May of [2008], Brom Futuro had lost nearly 170,000 acres of forest, roughly a quarter of the park. At the current rate of deforestation, environmental officials estimate, half the forest will be pasture in five more years. By 2021, it will be all gone” (2009). Why is nothing being done to stop this? We need to create stricter laws that protect the land in and around the forest. Unfortunately it going to be a lot more difficult than just creating laws. The impact of these laws however would endanger the livelihood of many people who live in Brom Futuro. Even though living in the national park and logging it is illegal, they still pursue their dream of having their own piece of land. Partlow goes on to say that the people who live in the forest know what they are doing is illegal, but they have lived in this place for so long that they will do anything to stay there. Cleofas de Oliveira, is one such person who Partlow writes about. “Oliveira and others say they are willing to plant trees and police themselves and the loggers in return for legitimate claim of their land” (Partlow, 2009). Partlow goes on to quote Oliveria, “If they (the government) try to move people and do not offer something of value, people would burn the rest of this forest in protest: Okay, if we have to leave, the forest goes with us” (2009).
While deforestation continues to be an issue across the globe, is there really much we can do to stop it. With the population around the world continuing to rise, soon we will have to start cutting trees in places that have been protected for a very long time. Honestly I don’t think that regulations against deforestation will stand for much longer. We are desperate for resources and trees and other natural resources will be some of the first to go.
Resources
Brennan, S., & Withgott, J. (2011). Environment the science behind the stories. (4 ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education.
Partlow, J. (2009, February 6). A protected forest's fast decline. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020503199
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Tammy's view on Natural Resources and Environmental Regulations in Society
Tammy L. Hooper
PHS 100A, Environmental Studies
Warner Pacific University
January 1, 2012
Natural Resources and Environmental Regulations in Society
This paper will discuss how society can assess natural resources and how as a society we can establish environmental regulations that have an impact on our culture and lifestyle. I will start with the definition of the word assess, which according to the web site Dictionary.com means to “estimate officially the value of property, income, resources, etc” (dictionary.com, 2011). This would imply that the person or organization doing the assessing values our natural resources and is looking at sustainability of the larger functional systems both for living and nonliving things that include society currently and for future generations. This would be an ecocentric perspective (Brennan, 2011, p. 141).
I agree with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that our natural resources such as “water, minerals, coal, oil, gas, living things and the land itself are this Nation's treasures” and further states this important information, “To be effective stewards of these valuable resources, our Nation must constantly advance our scientific knowledge and understanding” (Assessing Our Natural Resources, 2005). The USGS also discusses the importance of our Nations decision makers to be informed on how natural resources could be affected by decision making regarding demand of said resources and how these changes could affect our economy, environment and quality of life (Assessing Our Natural Resources, 2005). I believe being informed allows us to know what we are standing for and to make informed choices about that stance.
The USGS and other resources such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offer programs to help our decision makers become informed about our natural resources and to understand how their decisions could affect our culture and lifestyle. Examples of these programs are the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program and National Water-Use Information Program, Mineral Resource Assessments, National Oil and Gas Assessment, National Coal Resources Assessment, and World Energy Assessment. There are also biological resources available such as North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species, and Status and Trends of Biological Resources. Land use programs such as the National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) provide information on changes in the patterns of vegetation and land use (Assessing Our Natural Resources, 2005). There are also many programs that are more community focused such as the EPA’s website on green living that helps decision makers addresses areas of home and garden, school, community, shopping, on the road and at work (Learn the Issues: Green Living, 2011). The resources that have been discussed are all governmental however there are many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that influence international environmental policy as well such as The Nature Conservancy and Greenpeace. The Nature Conservancy has a wonderful website that explains their mission which is “to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends” (Learn More About The Nature Conservancy, 2012).
I personally like the idea of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a basis for how society can establish environmental regulations. Groups such as The Nature Conservancy use “science in everything they do” and “pursue non-confrontational, pragmatic solutions to conservation challenges” (Learn More About The Nature Conservancy, 2012). The first step to addressing environmental issues is recognizing a problem in society with our natural resources and having some facts to illustrate the problem. The next step is to see what is causing the identified problem (Brennan, 2011, pp. 185-186). For an average citizen such as myself, I would need to know how to scientifically collect the data needed for these first two steps. If I am unable to do that myself I would need to know how to connect with a scientific resource that would be interested in helping me such as becoming involved with a NGO. The third step is to problem solve a solution/s to the problem where again science is integral to this process.
To be effective, getting organized is vital. I know people who have started coalitions or joined an organization to help influence a cause that they believe in that will make life better for individuals and/or environmental causes. I have observed this requires passion, determination and a commitment to often spend substantial amounts of time supporting that cause. The fifth step is lobbying policymakers and this step requires knowing someone influential at the political level to allow you access to people who can actually make change happen (Brennan, 2011). To achieve this organizations such as The Nature Conservancy have partners with individuals, stake holders, governments to local nonprofits and corporations.
The last step in establishing environmental regulations is to turn your solution into law by preparing a bill that represents the desired outcome (Brennan, 2011, p. 187). Again, one has to have networking connects in order to have the bill sponsored. At this point the bill can become enacted into law if it passes successfully through several committees or it can fail. If the bill becomes policy then several different entities are needed to implement measure and enforce regulations to that law.
Information discussing environmental policy in this paper is what I have learned from reading our textbook and researching online. In a simpler world my wish would be that all humankind was inherently good and put a high value and kindness on everything God’s hand created. If a problem was pointed out such as we are consuming our precious natural resources at a voracious rate and we are quickly headed for ruin and harming many others in the process so we need to stop doing that. Then a light bulb would go on and society would be able to say “okay” and be satisfied with a simpler existence that includes more caring for others and less divide economically, socially, politically and racially.
References
(2011). Retrieved January 1, 2012, from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assess
Assessing Our Natural Resources. (2005, July 20). Retrieved January 1, 2012, from USGS : http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/094-99/
Brennan, S. &. (2011). Environment The Science Behind the Stories. San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc.
Learn the Issues: Green Living. (2011, December 22). Retrieved January 1, 2012, from EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency : http://www.epa.gov/gateway/learn/greenliving.html
Learn More About The Nature Conservancy. (2012). Retrieved January 9, 2012, from The Nature Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/aboutus/index.htm
PHS 100A, Environmental Studies
Warner Pacific University
January 1, 2012
Natural Resources and Environmental Regulations in Society
This paper will discuss how society can assess natural resources and how as a society we can establish environmental regulations that have an impact on our culture and lifestyle. I will start with the definition of the word assess, which according to the web site Dictionary.com means to “estimate officially the value of property, income, resources, etc” (dictionary.com, 2011). This would imply that the person or organization doing the assessing values our natural resources and is looking at sustainability of the larger functional systems both for living and nonliving things that include society currently and for future generations. This would be an ecocentric perspective (Brennan, 2011, p. 141).
I agree with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that our natural resources such as “water, minerals, coal, oil, gas, living things and the land itself are this Nation's treasures” and further states this important information, “To be effective stewards of these valuable resources, our Nation must constantly advance our scientific knowledge and understanding” (Assessing Our Natural Resources, 2005). The USGS also discusses the importance of our Nations decision makers to be informed on how natural resources could be affected by decision making regarding demand of said resources and how these changes could affect our economy, environment and quality of life (Assessing Our Natural Resources, 2005). I believe being informed allows us to know what we are standing for and to make informed choices about that stance.
The USGS and other resources such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offer programs to help our decision makers become informed about our natural resources and to understand how their decisions could affect our culture and lifestyle. Examples of these programs are the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program and National Water-Use Information Program, Mineral Resource Assessments, National Oil and Gas Assessment, National Coal Resources Assessment, and World Energy Assessment. There are also biological resources available such as North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species, and Status and Trends of Biological Resources. Land use programs such as the National Aerial Photography Program (NAPP) provide information on changes in the patterns of vegetation and land use (Assessing Our Natural Resources, 2005). There are also many programs that are more community focused such as the EPA’s website on green living that helps decision makers addresses areas of home and garden, school, community, shopping, on the road and at work (Learn the Issues: Green Living, 2011). The resources that have been discussed are all governmental however there are many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that influence international environmental policy as well such as The Nature Conservancy and Greenpeace. The Nature Conservancy has a wonderful website that explains their mission which is “to conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends” (Learn More About The Nature Conservancy, 2012).
I personally like the idea of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as a basis for how society can establish environmental regulations. Groups such as The Nature Conservancy use “science in everything they do” and “pursue non-confrontational, pragmatic solutions to conservation challenges” (Learn More About The Nature Conservancy, 2012). The first step to addressing environmental issues is recognizing a problem in society with our natural resources and having some facts to illustrate the problem. The next step is to see what is causing the identified problem (Brennan, 2011, pp. 185-186). For an average citizen such as myself, I would need to know how to scientifically collect the data needed for these first two steps. If I am unable to do that myself I would need to know how to connect with a scientific resource that would be interested in helping me such as becoming involved with a NGO. The third step is to problem solve a solution/s to the problem where again science is integral to this process.
To be effective, getting organized is vital. I know people who have started coalitions or joined an organization to help influence a cause that they believe in that will make life better for individuals and/or environmental causes. I have observed this requires passion, determination and a commitment to often spend substantial amounts of time supporting that cause. The fifth step is lobbying policymakers and this step requires knowing someone influential at the political level to allow you access to people who can actually make change happen (Brennan, 2011). To achieve this organizations such as The Nature Conservancy have partners with individuals, stake holders, governments to local nonprofits and corporations.
The last step in establishing environmental regulations is to turn your solution into law by preparing a bill that represents the desired outcome (Brennan, 2011, p. 187). Again, one has to have networking connects in order to have the bill sponsored. At this point the bill can become enacted into law if it passes successfully through several committees or it can fail. If the bill becomes policy then several different entities are needed to implement measure and enforce regulations to that law.
Information discussing environmental policy in this paper is what I have learned from reading our textbook and researching online. In a simpler world my wish would be that all humankind was inherently good and put a high value and kindness on everything God’s hand created. If a problem was pointed out such as we are consuming our precious natural resources at a voracious rate and we are quickly headed for ruin and harming many others in the process so we need to stop doing that. Then a light bulb would go on and society would be able to say “okay” and be satisfied with a simpler existence that includes more caring for others and less divide economically, socially, politically and racially.
References
(2011). Retrieved January 1, 2012, from dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/assess
Assessing Our Natural Resources. (2005, July 20). Retrieved January 1, 2012, from USGS : http://www.usgs.gov/themes/factsheet/094-99/
Brennan, S. &. (2011). Environment The Science Behind the Stories. San Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc.
Learn the Issues: Green Living. (2011, December 22). Retrieved January 1, 2012, from EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency : http://www.epa.gov/gateway/learn/greenliving.html
Learn More About The Nature Conservancy. (2012). Retrieved January 9, 2012, from The Nature Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/aboutus/index.htm
Glenn Rice's view on assessing natural resources
Warner Pacific College
January 12, 2012
Centuries ago, there was little need to take an inventory of lands occupied by humans, for nature still held sway over the destiny of human survival. In the early agricultural era, although little consideration was given to how human activity affected the environment – the earth’s human population was not large enough to have the global impact that it does today. Humans were constrained at the time by the negative feedback loop that manages the population of most species today, however within the last two centuries, advancements in agricultural technology and the economic growth that came with it, have enabled the human species to grow exponentially. Between the eighteenth century and today, the earth’s human population grew from its first billion individuals to the seven billion that it carries today. Additionally, where industrialized nations population growth has stabilized, in parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, population growth is rapidly increasing as technological advancements spread to these societies (University of Michigan, 2000).
However, there is a deep cultural belief in the supremacy of humankind, that manifest destiny guides our actions, and that conquering nature and “managing” natural resources is a divine right and responsibility. Additionally, there is the longstanding sense of entitlement that accompanies the ownership and possession of land. Social resistance to taxes and regulations in difficult economic times have further complicated any goal of balancing long-term environmental benefits with any short-term economic needs. Moreover, the human impact upon the environment takes place very slowly and any negative impact is unseen over the short-term, leading to the lingering notion that nature will supply the needs of society in perpetuity (Whitfield, 2011).
At the turn of the twentieth century, after experiencing the results of poor stewardship of the environment, attempts to put wise-use reforms into place were made. Within the first decade of that century, and spearheaded by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, and his forester Gifford Pinchot – the National Parks System, Wildlife Refuge System, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service were ushered in to mitigate the damage done over the last century (Radford University, n.d.). Thus it was that the United States Government began to assert its power to make decisions about environmental policy.
Throughout the following decades, the U.S. Government performed reasonably well in its role as environmental steward, and developed a healthy image of itself in that role (see Smokey Bear and Woodsy Owl.) However, in spite of its stated good intentions, the government was pushed to be more accommodating to a growing population that demanded greater access to the nation’s natural resources. Urban areas pushed out to encroach upon the very lands that were needed as resources to serve its needs. Battles over land rights and uses have now become more desperate and heated. Add to that, the current disdain for the actions of government, the aggressive refusal to accept the findings of scientific research, and the fact that commerce has many lobbyists and nature very few, the environment is being driven ever closer to its ultimate carrying capacity (Withgott, & Bennan, 2011).
The growth in the number of industrialized nations around the world, and their need to compete and survive in the global economy, now adds to the relentless and unsustainable extraction of earth’s natural resources. It is with hope that the push toward responsible environmental stewardship that is slowly developing within technologically advanced nations will spread to the rest of the world as the unsustainable practices of the past had. However, as our government, and the governments of emerging nation’s ability to provide responsible stewardship over the environment wanes – and pressure to provide natural resources to serve the needs of society advances – it increasingly falls upon civil society to alter its culture of consumerism and accept the factually supported truth that nature is indeed limited.
Resources
Radford University. (n.d.). Environmental History Timeline 1890 - 1920 The Progressive Era. Radford University. Retrieved from: http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/envhist/5progressive.html
University of Michigan. (2000). Demographic Transition: An Historical Sociological Perspective. University of Michigan. Retrieved from: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/pop_socio/pop_socio.html
Whitfield, J. (2011). Dr. Hern's Diagnosis: Humans as a Cancer of the Earth. Swarthmore College Environmental Studies. Retrieved from: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/humansandcancer.htm
Withgott, J., & Bennan, S. (2011). Environment: the science behind the stories (4th Ed.) New York, NY. Pearson Benjamin Cummings ISBN-13: 9780321715340
January 12, 2012
Centuries ago, there was little need to take an inventory of lands occupied by humans, for nature still held sway over the destiny of human survival. In the early agricultural era, although little consideration was given to how human activity affected the environment – the earth’s human population was not large enough to have the global impact that it does today. Humans were constrained at the time by the negative feedback loop that manages the population of most species today, however within the last two centuries, advancements in agricultural technology and the economic growth that came with it, have enabled the human species to grow exponentially. Between the eighteenth century and today, the earth’s human population grew from its first billion individuals to the seven billion that it carries today. Additionally, where industrialized nations population growth has stabilized, in parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, population growth is rapidly increasing as technological advancements spread to these societies (University of Michigan, 2000).
However, there is a deep cultural belief in the supremacy of humankind, that manifest destiny guides our actions, and that conquering nature and “managing” natural resources is a divine right and responsibility. Additionally, there is the longstanding sense of entitlement that accompanies the ownership and possession of land. Social resistance to taxes and regulations in difficult economic times have further complicated any goal of balancing long-term environmental benefits with any short-term economic needs. Moreover, the human impact upon the environment takes place very slowly and any negative impact is unseen over the short-term, leading to the lingering notion that nature will supply the needs of society in perpetuity (Whitfield, 2011).
At the turn of the twentieth century, after experiencing the results of poor stewardship of the environment, attempts to put wise-use reforms into place were made. Within the first decade of that century, and spearheaded by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, and his forester Gifford Pinchot – the National Parks System, Wildlife Refuge System, Bureau of Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service were ushered in to mitigate the damage done over the last century (Radford University, n.d.). Thus it was that the United States Government began to assert its power to make decisions about environmental policy.
Throughout the following decades, the U.S. Government performed reasonably well in its role as environmental steward, and developed a healthy image of itself in that role (see Smokey Bear and Woodsy Owl.) However, in spite of its stated good intentions, the government was pushed to be more accommodating to a growing population that demanded greater access to the nation’s natural resources. Urban areas pushed out to encroach upon the very lands that were needed as resources to serve its needs. Battles over land rights and uses have now become more desperate and heated. Add to that, the current disdain for the actions of government, the aggressive refusal to accept the findings of scientific research, and the fact that commerce has many lobbyists and nature very few, the environment is being driven ever closer to its ultimate carrying capacity (Withgott, & Bennan, 2011).
The growth in the number of industrialized nations around the world, and their need to compete and survive in the global economy, now adds to the relentless and unsustainable extraction of earth’s natural resources. It is with hope that the push toward responsible environmental stewardship that is slowly developing within technologically advanced nations will spread to the rest of the world as the unsustainable practices of the past had. However, as our government, and the governments of emerging nation’s ability to provide responsible stewardship over the environment wanes – and pressure to provide natural resources to serve the needs of society advances – it increasingly falls upon civil society to alter its culture of consumerism and accept the factually supported truth that nature is indeed limited.
Resources
Radford University. (n.d.). Environmental History Timeline 1890 - 1920 The Progressive Era. Radford University. Retrieved from: http://www.radford.edu/wkovarik/envhist/5progressive.html
University of Michigan. (2000). Demographic Transition: An Historical Sociological Perspective. University of Michigan. Retrieved from: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/pop_socio/pop_socio.html
Whitfield, J. (2011). Dr. Hern's Diagnosis: Humans as a Cancer of the Earth. Swarthmore College Environmental Studies. Retrieved from: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/jessiewhit/humansandcancer.htm
Withgott, J., & Bennan, S. (2011). Environment: the science behind the stories (4th Ed.) New York, NY. Pearson Benjamin Cummings ISBN-13: 9780321715340
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Tammy L. Hooper's view on the Scientific Method and Western Culture
PHS 100A, Environmental
Studies
Warner
Pacific University
December 29,
2011
The
Scientific Method in Western Culture
This
paper will define and give examples of what the scientific method is and how it
has influenced western culture.
This paper will also give a definition of western culture.
According to our text, the scientific method
is “the traditional experimental approach that scientists use to learn how the
world works” (Brennan, 2011, p. 11). To break this down a scientist is
interested in a subject and has an idea about it. The scientist begins with observing some kind of occurrence
that she would like to explicate, such as the germination of carrot and tomato
seeds, and then loads of what, when, how, and why questions are posed by the
scientist. This sets things up for
the scientist to develop a hypothesis which is a “statement that attempts to
explain a phenomenon or answer a scientific question” (Brennan, 2011) and a
prediction follows. An example would be posing a question
such as “Which seeds germinate quicker, carrot seeds or tomato
seeds? The hypothesis statement could be,” If I plant carrot seeds and
tomato seeds, then (the prediction) carrot seeds will germinate quicker” (Poore). The scientist then tests the predictions
“one at a time by gathering evidence that could refute and disprove the
prediction” (Brennan, 2011).
The
scientist will then test the predictions by performing experiments that
manipulates variables or conditions that can change. For example with our carrot and tomato seed hypothesis the
scientist could make a prediction that a warmer temperature would affect the
carrot seeds to germinate quicker.
The scientist would then grow the two pairs of seeds in two separate
greenhouses with one being warmer than the other or one set being grown inside
and one outside. The warmer
temperature would be the independent variable that is what the scientist
manipulates and the germinating seed would be the dependent variable. To
validate the hypothesis, the scientist will want to perform this experiment as
many times as possible obtaining the same results each time. The data from these tests is used to
“determine the strength and reliability of patterns they find” (Brennan, 2011, p. 12). There are also natural experiments in
the scientific method in which researchers test their hypothesis by searching
for correlations to validate their hypothesis. This type of experiment would happen with large interests
that could not be managed in a control setting. The last two pieces to the scientific method are the peer
review and conference presentations.
Peer reviewed work is when a scientists work is complete and the
researcher writes up their findings to be considered for submission to a
scientific journal for publication.
The editor of the journal will ask several other scientists (peers) to
review the manuscript and provide comments. Sometimes scientists present their work at professional
conferences which gives their peers a chance to interact with the information
being presented and give feedback and comments.
The
definition of western culture that I found most appealing states that:
Western culture is a body of knowledge
derived from reason. This foundation of reason has made
possible a vast accumulation of understanding related to reality or nature,
including human nature. This understanding is represented in several core
ideals and values, which include individualism,
happiness, rights, capitalism, science and technology. (What is Western Culture?, 2009)
This
definition appears to have many similarities with the scientific method in that
it is based on reason which has brought large amounts of data and understanding
of nature and human nature. The
scientific method seems to be interconnected with western culture and a perfect
fit for understanding how our western culture affects nature and ultimately
ourselves.
References
Brennan,
S. &. (2011). Environment The Science Behind the Stories. San
Francisco: Pearson Education, Inc.
Poore, S. (n.d.). Hypothesis.
Retrieved December 29, 2011, from Science Fair Projects:
http://spart5.k12.sc.us/techtraining/teacher/webpages/ScienceFairProjects/index.htm
What is Western
Culture?
(2009). Retrieved December 29, 2011, from Western Culture Global:
http://www.westerncultureglobal.org/what-is-western-culture.html
Glenn Rice's view on the Scientific Method and Western Culture
WS1 Response Paper #1
“Western Culture” is
generally described as a civil system that is founded upon reason, and of being
represented by the core values of individualism, rights, and capitalism – and
is nurtured and advanced by science, and technology (Western, 2009a). Working from this definition, many feel
that the ideals of western culture promote the development and sustainment of
advanced civilization, and thus, it is viewed as being more advanced – rising
above non-western cultures. The
Western Culture Knowledge Center defines western culture as a body of ideas and
values derived fundamentally from mysticism or subjectivism, as opposed to reason
(2009c). This somewhat predominant
view of global culture has resulted in a commonly held view that Euro-American
culture is unchallengeable in its superiority and that less advanced cultures
are inferior or “third world.”
This interpretation of cultural dynamics has been accepted as fact for centuries. However, as the processes of
sociocultural evolution have progressed, and as civilization has expanded
throughout the world, different attitudes about what defines “third world
status” have changed. The western
cultural paradigm that drove the advancements that created the civilization in
which we currently live, were celebrated in the past and in the present as the
panacea for most sociocultural ills.
Nonetheless, this social dynamic has been called in to question. Many currently view the old sociocultural
models of the past as out of control.
However, any hint of collectivism in society is viewed as an attack on
individualism, personal freedom, property rights, unencumbered economic
practices, and uninhibited resource management.
Ironically, science – itself a product of sociocultural advancement – has
become a resource for those who wish to challenge the status quo of
capitalistic society. Science
began to focus greater attention upon the environment in the early 70’s and
became a very uncomfortable presence for those that supported capitalism as it
stood, and resisted knowledge that would dispute its value and expose its
flaws. The scientific method,
which determines the viability of any studies and their outcomes, began to chip
away at the argument that western culture was superior in almost every case, by
producing compelling evidence to the contrary.
Briefly, in its
generally accepted form, the scientific method is a process by which questions
about how the individual components of our world function. Potential answers move through a
precise process of research and study that can achieve repeatable results. The results will then be published and
made available for review by peers and other interested parties (Withgott,
& Bennan, 2011). Science, and
the research methodology that sustains it, began to question capitalism and
western culture, and study their effect upon the environment, and attempted to
determine whether the benefits of capitalism outweigh the cost to the environment
– an environment that at one time was believed to be limitless.
This was the
overarching question that the scientific community – through the scientific
method – hoped to answer. The
hypothesis was that capitalism – of the sort that sustained modern western
culture – was unsustainable given the limited carrying capacity of the natural
environment – the concept of nature’s limited carrying capacity being a theory
that has been supported by other research (Cohen, 1995). Using data collected through experimentation,
and cross-referencing the data with similar research collected over time, a
variety of effects of modern society upon natural systems was determined.
Due to the
complications inherent to studying something as vast as nature, the experiments
themselves were not always easy to understand and often resulted in a new set
of questions. However, over time,
the answers to these questions appeared vital to the goal of maintaining a
healthy environment. On a number
of fronts, the studies eventually provided clearer answers to the question of
how western culture effect nature and its ability to sustain itself. The accumulated information of this
research has been published and widely distributed between other scientists and
researchers for review, and the outcomes of the experiments have been repeated
on numerous occasions (Withgott, & Bennan, 2011).
Arguably, and in
spite of the difficulty of understanding the often-confusing way in which
nature operates, the negative effects of western culture on the environment
have been clearly illustrated (Cohen, 1995). However, adjusting the inherent rigidity of western
culture’s reason and rationality to accommodate environmental concerns is
certain to seriously challenge the validity of the older paradigm and dismiss
those that avidly support it.
Change often meets with resistance, particularly when new knowledge and
the facts that support it conflicts with a centuries-old model. Some might say that the sociocultural
and socioeconomic disruption that will result from shifting focus toward the
protection of the environment and the confusing science that backs such change
is not worth the tremendous cost.
However, any peer reviewed science that backs up the reasons for change,
becomes reasonable in its own right, and in the end, may rationally accommodate
both the environment and the values of western culture.
References
Cohen,
J. E. (1995). Population Growth and Earth's Human
Carrying Capacity Science, New Series, Vol. 269, No. 5222. (Jul. 21, 1995), pp. 341-346. Retrieved from: http://links.jstor.org/
Western Culture Knowledge Center. (2009a). What is Western Culture? Western Culture Global. Retrieved from: http://westerncultureglobal.org/what-is-western-culture.html
Western Culture Knowledge Center. (2009c). Capitalism.
Western Culture Global.
Retrieved from: http://westerncultureglobal.org/knowledge-capitalism.html
Withgott,
J., & Bennan, S. (2011).
Environment: the science behind the stories (4th Ed.) New York, NY. Pearson Benjamin Cummings. ISBN-13: 9780321715340
The Scientific Method and Western Culture by Nelson Collazo-Serrano
PHS 100A
Warner Pacific
College
January 4, 2012
The Scientific Method
and Western Culture
The
environment’s well-being is the responsibility of each one of us, to ensure the
survival of our race as a whole.
In recent years, we all have heard through several media outlets such as
television, radio, and magazines the impacts of our actions have over our
environment and the effects that could have in our future. A great advocate for the environment is
the former Vice-President, Al Gore.
Throughout his movie, “The Inconvenience
Truth”, Al Gore touched on a variety of topics regarding our actions and
the effects of those actions regarding the environment. The main focus of Al Gore’s movie was
global warming. The scientific
society was involved in a series of investigations on the issue of
environment. The process used by those
scientists to determine the effects of our actions to the environment is called
the scientific method.
“The Scientific Method
is a logical and rational order of steps by which scientists come to
conclusions about the world around them.” (Science Made Simple, 2006 - 2011).
The
science community uses the scientific method to confirm the answers obtained by
their researches and studies. The
scientific method is a process to aid the user and to obtain answers to
questions using a step by step format.
Steps such as observations, hypothesis, predictions, experimentations,
and finally the conclusions are the core of the scientific method. During the observation step, the scientists
will research everything that is to know about the question or subject to be
studied. Using diverse sources of information
will help the research and the experiment to be good in general. The second step is creating
hypotheses. Scientists will declare
a statement that outlines the outcome of their experimentation. Hypothesis helps scientist express a
research or study in a form of a question. The following step is predictions. During this step, a scientist gives a detailed demonstration
about the truthiness of their hypothesis.
The experiment that scientist will conduct is to exam their
predictions. Having a wrong prediction
indicates that new details about the experiment were brought out and to be
taken into consideration. The
fourth step is the experimentation.
In this step, scientists will test their hypothesis with physical
experiments. Experiments are the instrument
used by scientist to find out if their thoughts or ideas were right or wrong. Experiments are an important part to
the scientific method because it will test the hypothesis. Finally, the conclusion will express
the experiment's results, and their relationship with the hypothesis. In the conclusion, the scientist has
the choice to support or disapprove their hypothesis.
“Western culture is a
body of knowledge derived from reason” (Western Culture Global, 2009).
In
United States we enjoy certain rights and liberties that allow us to enjoy our
lifestyles to the fullest. Our
western culture style of living has given us a place in this planet in which a large
amount of people around the world would like to be part of. Western culture is the direct
result of a society obtaining knowledge from reasoning and understanding. This way
of thinking helps societies such as ours to understand matters related
to nature, including human behavior.
Western culture allows our individualism way of reasoning from subject
to subject. This type of culture
also allows us as individuals to achieve our own happiness. Another attribute of western culture is
the protection of individual’s rights without sacrificing another individual’s
rights. Lastly, in western culture
individuals have the opportunity to obtain personal wealth promoting a
capitalism style of society.
The
progress of our western culture is not to reasoning and understanding
along. The scientific method is
also responsible for the progress of the western culture. The scientific method and western
culture has gone hand in hand helping each other through the years. Without the freedom of reasoning that
western culture provides, we could not have scientific method. Without scientific method we could not
have the advances in our western culture.
The great discoveries and inventions in technologies and science is due
to certain individuals who know the reasons and why’s of things. The price we had paid for some of those
advantages in our culture includes damages to our environment. The growth in our population made for an
increase in the housing industries, using part of our logging industries and taking
part of our natural lands. In these
types of cases, the scientific method is a great tool to measure how much damage we have made to our environment.
In
conclusion, we all are responsible for our environment. The advantages western culture allows
are a great privilege, not a right.
We are responsible for not destroying our surroundings for a little
space that we really do not need.
We all should look the environment as an investment not only for us, but
for our future generations.
References
Science Made Simple. (2006 - 2011). Understanding
and Using the Scientific Method. Retrieved December 29, 2011, from
www.sciencemadesimple.com:
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html
Western Culture Global. (2009). What is Western
Culture? Retrieved December 29, 2011, from www.westerncultureglobal.org:
http://www.westerncultureglobal.org/what-is-western-culture.html#
Withgott, J., & Brennan, S. (2011). Environment:
The Science Behind The Stories. San Francisco: Pearson Benjamin Cummings.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Matt Field's view of a "A Revolution of Mind"
Environmental Studies – PHS 100A
Warner Pacific College
November 7, 2011
The future of our environment is in the hands of humanity. It is not a bullet point on a list of concerns, it is fully dependent on whether or not we survive as a species and keep from destroying the planet. Without recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of environmental science we will never create the change our planet so deeply needs. (Withgott Brennan, p.8, 2011) It won’t be the adoption of “green programs” and sustainability that is going to save the world. What will save the world is a complete change in our minds from economy to politics and as far as religion. Henry David Thoreau is known for the modest philosophy of “simplify, simplify.” (Thoreau, p.69, 2004) If we are to survive this is the only choice we have.
It is a paradox to say that we must recognize all facets of life and yet simplify how we live. To suggest that one become an advocate of every environmental cause is not only exhausting but it is impossible. If we change the way we think, however, environmental sustainability isn’t such a difficult proposition. This can be exemplified in Gandhi, who “did not recognize separate rules for separate spheres of human life, but saw all spheres in an integrated manner, which exemplifies best the human ecological perspective.” (Moolakkattu, p. 152, 2010) Ecology isn’t a matter of activism. It is a matter of lifestyle. Thoreau says, “Instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one; instead of a hundred dishes, five; and reduce other things in proportion.” (Thoreau, p.69, 2004) We must fight our selfish desire to consume our resources. Just because we can consume doesn’t mean we have to, and yet our society is built on consumption and the accumulation of wealth.
Perhaps this comes from the dominance of Christianity in Western culture and the perversion that has been made of Christian theology. “Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” (White, p.4, 1967) Christian theology teaches that man is made in “God’s own image” and that he is to “fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28, New International Version) This creates a sense of duality between man and nature. God gives man dominion over all forms of fish and animals, even plants and trees. This mentality has given Christians the ability to justify all kinds of environmental exploitation under the guise of biblical command and permission.
Granted, compared to other religions, Christianity takes on the strongest stance of anthropocentrism, but I don’t think the religion is to blame. Mosaic law makes exception for environmental stewardship. In Leviticus God commands, “But in the seventh year the land is to have a year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards.” (Leviticus 25:4) If this law was observed today perhaps we wouldn’t need to apply the tremendous amount of pesticides that we cover our crops in every year.
The problem is greed. The belief that we have license to dominate the world for our own gain flies in the face of what Jesus taught. His teaching about economic and environmental stewardship implores us to not “store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.” (Matthew 6:19) This forces us to reflect upon our consumerism. Jesus continues his teaching by actually comparing us to nature saying that we shouldn’t worry about our food or clothing because God feeds and covers his creation. Clearly our greed stems from our mistrust in God.
Over the course of the last fifty years our average national income has more than doubled; yet our level of happiness is essentially the same. (Withgott Brennan, p.683, 2011) One might draw that economic growth and affluenza are the greatest epidemics that humanity and the world face. As a society we have decided that it is important to protect our economic interests. We have built a culture around an American dream of home ownership and access to automobiles and other comforts. Our public school system is designed to prepare students more to join the workforce than to think on their own. Our value is money, and yet Jesus would say that we “cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matthew 6:24) As long as our temporary national interests trump long term spiritual and transcendental philosophy we are doomed. “The issue is whether a democratized world can survive its own implications. Presumably we cannot unless we rethink our axioms.” (White, p.2, 1967)
Our entire society has become so obsessed with the accumulation of wealth and the security that comes from work that we have ravaged our environment. And yet Thoreau would say, “Why should we live with such hurry and waste of life? We are determined to be starved before we are hungry. Men say that a stitch in time saves nine, and so they take a thousand stitches today to save nine tomorrow. As for work, we haven't any of any consequence.” (Thoreau, p.70, 2004) Yet it is the very idea of work that continues to drive us. Our insatiable desire to continue to consume has given us tremendous advancement at terrible cost. Until we decide that we can no longer give in to our own material desires we will never achieve the personal, ecological, societal, and spiritual peace we so deeply desire. As Gandhi would say, “a man who multiplies his daily wants cannot achieve the goal of plain living and high thinking.” (Moolakkattu, p. 153, 2010) The emphasis Gandhi placed on contentment allowed him to dismantle the British hold on India by not participating in their economy. We could do the same.
The beginning of creating a change in the world is to end our greedy addiction to material wealth. “More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one.” (White, p.4, 1967) The answers are simple. “Simplicity, simplicity.” We have to decide we don’t need as much. We need to figure out how to eliminate our need for finite resources. We need to simplify our diet and eliminate processed food. We need to live our lives healthily so we are not beholden to doctors, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies. We need to change our minds. Christians need to trust God to provide and then spread the excess of God’s bounty on the unbelieving world. The result would be a revolution of thought and revitalization for man, nature, and God. This revitalization is something the world has never experienced.
Reference
Moolakkattu, J (2010) Gandhi as a Human Ecologist, pp. 152-153 retrieved from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JHE/JHE-29-0-000-10-Web/JHE-29-3-000-10-Abst-PDF/JHE-29-3-151-10-2065-Moolakkattu-J-S/JHE-29-3-151-10-2065-Moolakkattu-J-S-Tt.pdf November 4, 2011
Thoreau, H (2004) Walden, pp. 69-70 Houghtin-Mifflin, Boston
White, L (1967) The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis pp. 2, 4 retrieved from http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf, November 5, 2011
Withcott, J Brennan, S (2011) Environment, The Science Behind the Stories pp. 8, 683 Benjamin Cummings, Boston
(1995) The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Warner Pacific College
November 7, 2011
The future of our environment is in the hands of humanity. It is not a bullet point on a list of concerns, it is fully dependent on whether or not we survive as a species and keep from destroying the planet. Without recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of environmental science we will never create the change our planet so deeply needs. (Withgott Brennan, p.8, 2011) It won’t be the adoption of “green programs” and sustainability that is going to save the world. What will save the world is a complete change in our minds from economy to politics and as far as religion. Henry David Thoreau is known for the modest philosophy of “simplify, simplify.” (Thoreau, p.69, 2004) If we are to survive this is the only choice we have.
It is a paradox to say that we must recognize all facets of life and yet simplify how we live. To suggest that one become an advocate of every environmental cause is not only exhausting but it is impossible. If we change the way we think, however, environmental sustainability isn’t such a difficult proposition. This can be exemplified in Gandhi, who “did not recognize separate rules for separate spheres of human life, but saw all spheres in an integrated manner, which exemplifies best the human ecological perspective.” (Moolakkattu, p. 152, 2010) Ecology isn’t a matter of activism. It is a matter of lifestyle. Thoreau says, “Instead of three meals a day, if it be necessary eat but one; instead of a hundred dishes, five; and reduce other things in proportion.” (Thoreau, p.69, 2004) We must fight our selfish desire to consume our resources. Just because we can consume doesn’t mean we have to, and yet our society is built on consumption and the accumulation of wealth.
Perhaps this comes from the dominance of Christianity in Western culture and the perversion that has been made of Christian theology. “Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen.” (White, p.4, 1967) Christian theology teaches that man is made in “God’s own image” and that he is to “fill the earth and subdue it.” (Genesis 1:28, New International Version) This creates a sense of duality between man and nature. God gives man dominion over all forms of fish and animals, even plants and trees. This mentality has given Christians the ability to justify all kinds of environmental exploitation under the guise of biblical command and permission.
Granted, compared to other religions, Christianity takes on the strongest stance of anthropocentrism, but I don’t think the religion is to blame. Mosaic law makes exception for environmental stewardship. In Leviticus God commands, “But in the seventh year the land is to have a year of sabbath rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not sow your fields or prune your vineyards.” (Leviticus 25:4) If this law was observed today perhaps we wouldn’t need to apply the tremendous amount of pesticides that we cover our crops in every year.
The problem is greed. The belief that we have license to dominate the world for our own gain flies in the face of what Jesus taught. His teaching about economic and environmental stewardship implores us to not “store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.” (Matthew 6:19) This forces us to reflect upon our consumerism. Jesus continues his teaching by actually comparing us to nature saying that we shouldn’t worry about our food or clothing because God feeds and covers his creation. Clearly our greed stems from our mistrust in God.
Over the course of the last fifty years our average national income has more than doubled; yet our level of happiness is essentially the same. (Withgott Brennan, p.683, 2011) One might draw that economic growth and affluenza are the greatest epidemics that humanity and the world face. As a society we have decided that it is important to protect our economic interests. We have built a culture around an American dream of home ownership and access to automobiles and other comforts. Our public school system is designed to prepare students more to join the workforce than to think on their own. Our value is money, and yet Jesus would say that we “cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matthew 6:24) As long as our temporary national interests trump long term spiritual and transcendental philosophy we are doomed. “The issue is whether a democratized world can survive its own implications. Presumably we cannot unless we rethink our axioms.” (White, p.2, 1967)
Our entire society has become so obsessed with the accumulation of wealth and the security that comes from work that we have ravaged our environment. And yet Thoreau would say, “Why should we live with such hurry and waste of life? We are determined to be starved before we are hungry. Men say that a stitch in time saves nine, and so they take a thousand stitches today to save nine tomorrow. As for work, we haven't any of any consequence.” (Thoreau, p.70, 2004) Yet it is the very idea of work that continues to drive us. Our insatiable desire to continue to consume has given us tremendous advancement at terrible cost. Until we decide that we can no longer give in to our own material desires we will never achieve the personal, ecological, societal, and spiritual peace we so deeply desire. As Gandhi would say, “a man who multiplies his daily wants cannot achieve the goal of plain living and high thinking.” (Moolakkattu, p. 153, 2010) The emphasis Gandhi placed on contentment allowed him to dismantle the British hold on India by not participating in their economy. We could do the same.
The beginning of creating a change in the world is to end our greedy addiction to material wealth. “More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecologic crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one.” (White, p.4, 1967) The answers are simple. “Simplicity, simplicity.” We have to decide we don’t need as much. We need to figure out how to eliminate our need for finite resources. We need to simplify our diet and eliminate processed food. We need to live our lives healthily so we are not beholden to doctors, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies. We need to change our minds. Christians need to trust God to provide and then spread the excess of God’s bounty on the unbelieving world. The result would be a revolution of thought and revitalization for man, nature, and God. This revitalization is something the world has never experienced.
Reference
Moolakkattu, J (2010) Gandhi as a Human Ecologist, pp. 152-153 retrieved from http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/JHE/JHE-29-0-000-10-Web/JHE-29-3-000-10-Abst-PDF/JHE-29-3-151-10-2065-Moolakkattu-J-S/JHE-29-3-151-10-2065-Moolakkattu-J-S-Tt.pdf November 4, 2011
Thoreau, H (2004) Walden, pp. 69-70 Houghtin-Mifflin, Boston
White, L (1967) The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis pp. 2, 4 retrieved from http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf, November 5, 2011
Withcott, J Brennan, S (2011) Environment, The Science Behind the Stories pp. 8, 683 Benjamin Cummings, Boston
(1995) The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)