Compare and contrast
In this modern century, the technology and manufactory keep increasing day by day as same as extinction of natural resources. Have you ever think of the things that you use every day made by? Or where are those stuff come from? People keep taking too much goodness from environment and give back strangeness.
The Lorax was the fiction movie but taken details in real life. The article Easter's end was the non-fiction article, that was real research. Some details in the article were still happening at Easter Island. They have a lot similarities but there are some differences. In the beginning, they were miniature paradise, which were very fabulous amazing place surrounded by mountains, rivers, flowers, green grass, trees and animals. In additional, fresh air and clean water were also counted as their advantage. And then, the trouble was both of them have same environment pollution. The reason was they used too much natural resources and give back too much toxic to the air and water . The smokes from factories, garbage threw into the river, chopped off trees faster than the time let them generate. Which called deforestation; animals have no food to survive, a lot of them extinct in a very short time. They were killing the lives around them and themselves every single day in direct and indirect ways.
In the movie " The Lorax ", Once-ler was represent human; the brown barbaloot was represent environmentalist. Once-ler just think how to make more money but didn't think about the environment around him, what he had left behind. While doing stuff to make money, he were ruining his life, career and future without realizing that. He chopped off trees to make thneeds, which were used for many things to serving the buyers. He released gases and oil into environment from his company. Smokes and waste are two products that resulted from making Thneeds. He decided to build houses, buildings and factories ... taking land of animals and plants. Finally, his business failed because the place that his manufactories located had no lives of natural. No plants, no animals, no fresh air and water except pollutions. I think it's possible to achieve sustainable development because possible if we want to try and put effort on it.
In other hand, the article " Easter's end " also showing the same problem of environment pollution. In the beginning, they had an incredible field. Although there was no high trees or bushes but green grass, strong trees and huge statues. Later on, they wanted to move those statues around but they didn't have machines or anything but trees. So they started chop off trees to make tools to move statues and constructing canoes. They chopped off the forest rapidly than the forest was regenerating. Finally, they killed all the natural sources around them in both intentional and unintentional ways. And the results they have received was bones of animals and humans became common in late Easter garbage heaps. Their civilization also vanished, economy went down horribly. Hunger and extinction spread everywhere in Easter Island.
Is it worth to saving the environment? Is it possible for us to make a difference? Sure, every single people should do something to make a changes. Environment needs your assistance. They both have learned from their serious mistake. Anyways, from their mistake we could take out our own lesson and try to make changes to our life on this world.
The Lorax was the fiction movie but taken details in real life. The article Easter's end was the non-fiction article, that was real research. Some details in the article were still happening at Easter Island. They have a lot similarities but there are some differences. In the beginning, they were miniature paradise, which were very fabulous amazing place surrounded by mountains, rivers, flowers, green grass, trees and animals. In additional, fresh air and clean water were also counted as their advantage. And then, the trouble was both of them have same environment pollution. The reason was they used too much natural resources and give back too much toxic to the air and water . The smokes from factories, garbage threw into the river, chopped off trees faster than the time let them generate. Which called deforestation; animals have no food to survive, a lot of them extinct in a very short time. They were killing the lives around them and themselves every single day in direct and indirect ways.
In the movie " The Lorax ", Once-ler was represent human; the brown barbaloot was represent environmentalist. Once-ler just think how to make more money but didn't think about the environment around him, what he had left behind. While doing stuff to make money, he were ruining his life, career and future without realizing that. He chopped off trees to make thneeds, which were used for many things to serving the buyers. He released gases and oil into environment from his company. Smokes and waste are two products that resulted from making Thneeds. He decided to build houses, buildings and factories ... taking land of animals and plants. Finally, his business failed because the place that his manufactories located had no lives of natural. No plants, no animals, no fresh air and water except pollutions. I think it's possible to achieve sustainable development because possible if we want to try and put effort on it.
In other hand, the article " Easter's end " also showing the same problem of environment pollution. In the beginning, they had an incredible field. Although there was no high trees or bushes but green grass, strong trees and huge statues. Later on, they wanted to move those statues around but they didn't have machines or anything but trees. So they started chop off trees to make tools to move statues and constructing canoes. They chopped off the forest rapidly than the forest was regenerating. Finally, they killed all the natural sources around them in both intentional and unintentional ways. And the results they have received was bones of animals and humans became common in late Easter garbage heaps. Their civilization also vanished, economy went down horribly. Hunger and extinction spread everywhere in Easter Island.
Is it worth to saving the environment? Is it possible for us to make a difference? Sure, every single people should do something to make a changes. Environment needs your assistance. They both have learned from their serious mistake. Anyways, from their mistake we could take out our own lesson and try to make changes to our life on this world.
Justifications for preserving the environment
Ecological justification - A rationale for the conservation of nature based on the idea that the environment provides specific functions necessary to the persistence of our
life.
life.
Utilitarian justification - A rationale for the conservation of nature based on the idea that the environment provides individuals with direct economic benefits.
Aesthetic justification - An argument for the conservation of nature on the grounds that nature is beautiful and beauty is important and valuable to people.
Recreational justification - The wilderness is only valued until an alternative method or place is located, another is the differing cultural views of wilderness.
Inspirational justification - conservation of nature can be based on human
spirits.
spirits.
Creative justification - creativity of artist and poets, among others, is often inspired by their contact with nature
Moral justification - An argument for the conservation of nature on the grounds that aspects of the environment have a right to exist, independent of human desires, and that it is our moral obligation to allow them to continue or to help them persist.
Earth Day Network Footprint Calculator
The story of stuff
Vocabulary
1. Extraction - Chopped of trees - Losing 2000 trees/min - Used the world natural resources.
2. Production - 100000 synthetic chemicals - Toxics get into the product and toxics get out to the water and air - US creates 4000000000 lbs of pollution per year.
3. Distribution - Externalized costs - People become nation consumers
4. Consumption - 99% of our stuff become trash in 9 months
5. Disposal - Planned obsolescence - Perceived obsolescence
Refection
- Throughout the video, I got some info like : we still have 2/3 natural resources, US has less than 4% of original forest left. Which meant 1/3 of natural resources are gone, US has used 96% of original forest. We chopped off 2000 trees per minutes to making products. When we look a bit deeper, we'll see they put a lot of toxic to the product. Dioxin is the most harmful toxic they used to make things." Toxic in toxic out " is a common phrase that existed in every single products. To make stuff, the producers put a huge amount of toxic into it that affect to the workers and the buyers. And when the users throw stuff away, those things become trash ... they burned the stuff that unusable and took out the stuff that still usable to make another things. When they burn, those toxic comes out to air and water create air and water pollution. US creates 4000000000 lbs of pollution per year. 1 person threw out 4.5lbs of garbage per day. Those pollutions affect on changing climate on the Earth. We taking goods from natural resources more than regenerate those goods back.
Have you ever think why sometimes the prices of stuff are so cheap? You feel like you don't really buy it, sometimes you can get a radio with $4.99 cents. Who paid for the fuel, oil and gases for long shipping, factories, workers ... ? Because the producers have planned obsolescence, which is designed for the dump; they made weak quality of the product but use a great appearance to catch costumers' faith. They tried to make stuff breaks as fast as possible. 99% of our stuff become trash in 9 months. We keep buying new stuff and throwing out old ones, we become nation consumers now. They aren't provide health care, education, safe transportation, sustainability and justice that required for consumer goods.
Our solution is recycle, but recycling stuff could help but not quite all because some products like juice box made out of plastic, paper and metals. We can't ever separate them in the right spot. But something better than nothing, so recycle things as much as possible. Also, stand up and speak to improve the sustainability, equity, green chemistry, zero waste, close loop production, renewable energy and local living economies. Those things are super help our planet.
1. Extraction - Chopped of trees - Losing 2000 trees/min - Used the world natural resources.
2. Production - 100000 synthetic chemicals - Toxics get into the product and toxics get out to the water and air - US creates 4000000000 lbs of pollution per year.
3. Distribution - Externalized costs - People become nation consumers
4. Consumption - 99% of our stuff become trash in 9 months
5. Disposal - Planned obsolescence - Perceived obsolescence
Refection
- Throughout the video, I got some info like : we still have 2/3 natural resources, US has less than 4% of original forest left. Which meant 1/3 of natural resources are gone, US has used 96% of original forest. We chopped off 2000 trees per minutes to making products. When we look a bit deeper, we'll see they put a lot of toxic to the product. Dioxin is the most harmful toxic they used to make things." Toxic in toxic out " is a common phrase that existed in every single products. To make stuff, the producers put a huge amount of toxic into it that affect to the workers and the buyers. And when the users throw stuff away, those things become trash ... they burned the stuff that unusable and took out the stuff that still usable to make another things. When they burn, those toxic comes out to air and water create air and water pollution. US creates 4000000000 lbs of pollution per year. 1 person threw out 4.5lbs of garbage per day. Those pollutions affect on changing climate on the Earth. We taking goods from natural resources more than regenerate those goods back.
Have you ever think why sometimes the prices of stuff are so cheap? You feel like you don't really buy it, sometimes you can get a radio with $4.99 cents. Who paid for the fuel, oil and gases for long shipping, factories, workers ... ? Because the producers have planned obsolescence, which is designed for the dump; they made weak quality of the product but use a great appearance to catch costumers' faith. They tried to make stuff breaks as fast as possible. 99% of our stuff become trash in 9 months. We keep buying new stuff and throwing out old ones, we become nation consumers now. They aren't provide health care, education, safe transportation, sustainability and justice that required for consumer goods.
Our solution is recycle, but recycling stuff could help but not quite all because some products like juice box made out of plastic, paper and metals. We can't ever separate them in the right spot. But something better than nothing, so recycle things as much as possible. Also, stand up and speak to improve the sustainability, equity, green chemistry, zero waste, close loop production, renewable energy and local living economies. Those things are super help our planet.
Scientific Theory
What is a scientific theory? - a theory that explains the scientific observations
What is hypothesis? - a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. " If ... then ... " statement.
What is hypothesis? - a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. " If ... then ... " statement.
Data - facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.
Dependent variable - a variable (often denoted by y ) whose value depends on that of
another. Control variable - A variable
that remains unchanged or held constant to prevent its effects on the outcome and therefore may verify the behavior of and the relationship between independent and dependent variables |
Repeatability - let other scientist repeat the experiments
Independent variable - a variable (often denoted by x ) whose variation does not depend on
that of another Manipulated variable - The terms "dependent variable" and "independent variable" are used in similar but subtly different ways in mathematics and statistics as part of the standard
terminology in those subjects. |
Scientific method
a. Make observation and develop a question about it.
b. Develop a tentative answer a hypothesis.
c. Design a controlled experiment to test the hypothesis.
d. Collect data.
e. Interpret data.
f. Draw a conclusion from the data.
g. Compare the conclusion to the hypothesis and determine where it's supported or rejected the hypothesis.
h. Conduct additional experiments to test further if the hypothesis is supported, otherwise, construct a new hypothesis.
a. Make observation and develop a question about it.
b. Develop a tentative answer a hypothesis.
c. Design a controlled experiment to test the hypothesis.
d. Collect data.
e. Interpret data.
f. Draw a conclusion from the data.
g. Compare the conclusion to the hypothesis and determine where it's supported or rejected the hypothesis.
h. Conduct additional experiments to test further if the hypothesis is supported, otherwise, construct a new hypothesis.
The case of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker
1. What is the major conflict between Brad and Mary in terms of scientific process? Make a list of Brad's arguments and valid pieces of evidence and Mary's response to each.
Brad's arguments - * Some of their guys are top birders in North America and have spent years trying to find an Ivory-Bill. * The video that have recorded. *More than 17000 hours of sound recordings that include some " kent" calls people have typical for the Ivory-bills. * Those 7 people have personally seen an Ivory-bill fly by anywhere from 15-150m away. * Searched the entire 550000 acres in the Big Woods area. * Will get the perfect picture of the bird, but if wait too long may miss the chance to save the last surviving Ivory-bills.
Mary responses - * Possible the Pileated Woodpecker which is looks very similar to the Ivory-bill ones. * Blue jays ad nuthatches can also make " kent" calls. * Millions of dollars will be spent protecting a phantom bird if this bird already extinct.
2. What do you think about Brad's concern that by waiting with the announcement they could miss their chance to save the birds?
- I concur with Brad that waiting isn't a good choice, because they have pretty much great evidences. Although, those evidences aren't enough to prove that Ivory-bills still alive. But they can saving those birds while searching more info to make sure their announcement is true.
3. Imagine you are the owner of a company that owns the logging rights adjacent to the area of the woodpecker sightings, or a biologist trying to protect the habitat of another endangered species in another part of the state. do you think that they would be satisfied with the same amount of evidence in this case as Brad? Why/Why not?
- Actually, I would be satisfied with this evidence unless they have to look for more evidence to make sure that those Ivory-bills woodpecker still alive. Mary is perfectly right on her responses but neither of them knowing the tru.th, so just make a chance for them to look more info to support their announcements.
4. Give other examples of public discourse, policy, decisions, or controversial issues where your insights from this case could be applied.
- Alert saving environmental magazines; public website to diffuse the knowledge of protecting the animals and plants that are in extinction.
5. Decide how much evidence you would need to accept the claim that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct
- Getting facts from believable web or sources, or seeing them with my own eyes.
6. Does it matter to you who presents the evidence?
- Yes, it does matter because I'll put my faith in the biologist or scientist or environmentalist or who works in science than just random people around.
7. Who presented the evidence in the real Ivory-billed Woodpecker case (who was present at the press conference)?
- The birders ( biologists study birds)
Brad's arguments - * Some of their guys are top birders in North America and have spent years trying to find an Ivory-Bill. * The video that have recorded. *More than 17000 hours of sound recordings that include some " kent" calls people have typical for the Ivory-bills. * Those 7 people have personally seen an Ivory-bill fly by anywhere from 15-150m away. * Searched the entire 550000 acres in the Big Woods area. * Will get the perfect picture of the bird, but if wait too long may miss the chance to save the last surviving Ivory-bills.
Mary responses - * Possible the Pileated Woodpecker which is looks very similar to the Ivory-bill ones. * Blue jays ad nuthatches can also make " kent" calls. * Millions of dollars will be spent protecting a phantom bird if this bird already extinct.
2. What do you think about Brad's concern that by waiting with the announcement they could miss their chance to save the birds?
- I concur with Brad that waiting isn't a good choice, because they have pretty much great evidences. Although, those evidences aren't enough to prove that Ivory-bills still alive. But they can saving those birds while searching more info to make sure their announcement is true.
3. Imagine you are the owner of a company that owns the logging rights adjacent to the area of the woodpecker sightings, or a biologist trying to protect the habitat of another endangered species in another part of the state. do you think that they would be satisfied with the same amount of evidence in this case as Brad? Why/Why not?
- Actually, I would be satisfied with this evidence unless they have to look for more evidence to make sure that those Ivory-bills woodpecker still alive. Mary is perfectly right on her responses but neither of them knowing the tru.th, so just make a chance for them to look more info to support their announcements.
4. Give other examples of public discourse, policy, decisions, or controversial issues where your insights from this case could be applied.
- Alert saving environmental magazines; public website to diffuse the knowledge of protecting the animals and plants that are in extinction.
5. Decide how much evidence you would need to accept the claim that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct
- Getting facts from believable web or sources, or seeing them with my own eyes.
6. Does it matter to you who presents the evidence?
- Yes, it does matter because I'll put my faith in the biologist or scientist or environmentalist or who works in science than just random people around.
7. Who presented the evidence in the real Ivory-billed Woodpecker case (who was present at the press conference)?
- The birders ( biologists study birds)
Human footprint reflection
|
Each one of us will have a huge impact on the world over an average lifetime. Have you ever wonder how much things we used through our lifetime? Add up amount of food, water, land, trees, fuels, electronic devices, papers, etc. huge huh??
Now, only 17% of land mass is unaffected by people. We eat 1649630427 lbs of food as a nation per day. We used 1277043 gallons of water excluding showers. 1/2 of our electricity in the US comes from coals, burning coals creates 66 tons of CO2 emissions per year. The heat from airplanes released CO2 and used a lot of fuel. Per day, we use 10500000 barrels of oil. Which means, there is 1000 tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere and come out to ocean. What happening to our wet land? Dried river, water pollution 'coz too much of CO2 and toxic released from factories, and people. Plants and animals extinct rapidly, river dried up, etc. |
In this modern century, using technology is very common and necessary. Without them, we can't exist. Computers uses a lot of coals, 530 fossils, 48 chemicals, and spent too much resources for each one. Through those common lists, we can see how our lifetime impact on the Earth. What should we do? We should recycling stuff to make a difference although recycling isn't work quite well at all but something greater than nothing, so do something to contribute saving our planet. Saving electricity, we could make small changes in our to reduce our CO2 footprint is decrease the degree of the heater, unplug the electric when we not using them, etc.
Happy Fishing Lab
1. Did anyone in your group take too many fish? How did that make you feel? Did everyone try to take as many as possible? Why or Why not? Does society reward those with the "most"?
- Yes, everyone was out on their own. They only cared about themselves and how they'd survive if they got as many fish as possible. I felt a little intense because whatever you got depended on if you would proceed to the next "season". Every person at my table immediately started spooning as many fish as they could once the clock started. Yes normally society tends to envy and give more attention to those who have "more" because in society's eyes they're more important than the people who have less.
2. Did anyone sacrifice the # of fish, for the good of the community? Why or Why not? Does society every reward that type of person?
- No because each person just wanted to get enough fish to survive into the next round. None of us ever thought about
how we should leave a couple so they can reproduce even though it was clearly stated in the instructions. Society does it thinks highly of whoever does the service. I know I do, I give respect to that person and think of them
differently.
3. In Game two...how did your strategy change, if at all? Does it make a difference to know what the rewards are?
- We didn't make it to the second game, but if we would've we'd be more careful on keeping track on the reproducing of the
fish. It makes a difference to know that we need to help each other out so we can all survive.
4. Is it possible to maximize the number of fish caught/person AND the number of fish remaining in the pound at the same time? Why or Why not?
- It is possible, but the hunt for fish would be harder unless they work together to split the values of each fish and keeping in mind how they have to leave some to reproduce.
5. What are some natural resources that are common resources?
- Water, oxygen, oil, coal.
6. What are the global commons? Are these being used wisely? Why or Why not?
- The ocean is the global common and no it is not being used wisely considering there is a lot of water
pollution in the oceans. But along the lines with this lab the lack of reproducing is also a big problem. Not having an off season is what will make fish extinct and the cost of living will bury one.
7. What can people do to use these resources most wisely?
- The obvious one is to value the resources they have and not over use them. They need to keep in mind that natural resources won't last forever so how one handles them is very important.
8. Did a particular "type" of fish disappear faster than the others? How does this relate to "economically valuable" species in nature and their extinction rates?
- Yes, the most valuable fish (yellow goldfish) disappeared in a snap. This relates in the fact that when one is going to sell a product they want to get the best one so they can sell it at a high price and earn more profit off of it then what they originally paid for to either make it or buy it.
REFLECTION
- In this happy fishing lab, my team lost at the first round because we out fish of the lake. Every single member of our group wanted to caught as much fish as possible, but none of us think should leave some fishes left in the lake, let them reproduce. So we can get some more for the next season. Honestly, I loved this lab, because people in my team helped each other to get fishes, so no one had less or more fish than another. We didn't against each other, but share. I think this is a beautiful thing in life, because only love could bring us up.
In this simulation, the results showed that all of the resources that are common resources can be depleted unless taken care of, and treated as a serious topic, instead of worrying about yourself. The main ideas of this simulation were to show how without the self control, our resources can easily be wiped out, eventually driving humans extinct, and destroying the planet. In our society today, there isn't very much care for what can happen later, because it is viewed as an event that will happen much later that we shouldn't worry about, when in the environment, it is happening at these times, and is still happening. If our society could be shown how working to save the planet, and to save resources, instead of using all of what we have, we
could save the planet for ourselves, and eventually for others. Some examples of these resources that are overused today are the fish, water, oil, and air. For these situations, we could try to find more efficient ways to use them, and try to renew or recycle what isn't used by replacing what was used with a seed, or to create ways to cut back in our usages, such as creating a shower head that turns off after ten minutes, or a faucet that only has short sprays. Lastly, we could stop hunting and poaching, and try to keep animals alive and bring endangered animals away from extinction.
- Yes, everyone was out on their own. They only cared about themselves and how they'd survive if they got as many fish as possible. I felt a little intense because whatever you got depended on if you would proceed to the next "season". Every person at my table immediately started spooning as many fish as they could once the clock started. Yes normally society tends to envy and give more attention to those who have "more" because in society's eyes they're more important than the people who have less.
2. Did anyone sacrifice the # of fish, for the good of the community? Why or Why not? Does society every reward that type of person?
- No because each person just wanted to get enough fish to survive into the next round. None of us ever thought about
how we should leave a couple so they can reproduce even though it was clearly stated in the instructions. Society does it thinks highly of whoever does the service. I know I do, I give respect to that person and think of them
differently.
3. In Game two...how did your strategy change, if at all? Does it make a difference to know what the rewards are?
- We didn't make it to the second game, but if we would've we'd be more careful on keeping track on the reproducing of the
fish. It makes a difference to know that we need to help each other out so we can all survive.
4. Is it possible to maximize the number of fish caught/person AND the number of fish remaining in the pound at the same time? Why or Why not?
- It is possible, but the hunt for fish would be harder unless they work together to split the values of each fish and keeping in mind how they have to leave some to reproduce.
5. What are some natural resources that are common resources?
- Water, oxygen, oil, coal.
6. What are the global commons? Are these being used wisely? Why or Why not?
- The ocean is the global common and no it is not being used wisely considering there is a lot of water
pollution in the oceans. But along the lines with this lab the lack of reproducing is also a big problem. Not having an off season is what will make fish extinct and the cost of living will bury one.
7. What can people do to use these resources most wisely?
- The obvious one is to value the resources they have and not over use them. They need to keep in mind that natural resources won't last forever so how one handles them is very important.
8. Did a particular "type" of fish disappear faster than the others? How does this relate to "economically valuable" species in nature and their extinction rates?
- Yes, the most valuable fish (yellow goldfish) disappeared in a snap. This relates in the fact that when one is going to sell a product they want to get the best one so they can sell it at a high price and earn more profit off of it then what they originally paid for to either make it or buy it.
REFLECTION
- In this happy fishing lab, my team lost at the first round because we out fish of the lake. Every single member of our group wanted to caught as much fish as possible, but none of us think should leave some fishes left in the lake, let them reproduce. So we can get some more for the next season. Honestly, I loved this lab, because people in my team helped each other to get fishes, so no one had less or more fish than another. We didn't against each other, but share. I think this is a beautiful thing in life, because only love could bring us up.
In this simulation, the results showed that all of the resources that are common resources can be depleted unless taken care of, and treated as a serious topic, instead of worrying about yourself. The main ideas of this simulation were to show how without the self control, our resources can easily be wiped out, eventually driving humans extinct, and destroying the planet. In our society today, there isn't very much care for what can happen later, because it is viewed as an event that will happen much later that we shouldn't worry about, when in the environment, it is happening at these times, and is still happening. If our society could be shown how working to save the planet, and to save resources, instead of using all of what we have, we
could save the planet for ourselves, and eventually for others. Some examples of these resources that are overused today are the fish, water, oil, and air. For these situations, we could try to find more efficient ways to use them, and try to renew or recycle what isn't used by replacing what was used with a seed, or to create ways to cut back in our usages, such as creating a shower head that turns off after ten minutes, or a faucet that only has short sprays. Lastly, we could stop hunting and poaching, and try to keep animals alive and bring endangered animals away from extinction.