"Animalcules and Other Little Subjects"- Mark Smith

Mark Smith is really, what is the word, obsessed? with life. He has trouble explaining his "satisfaction with the animalcules" because he cannot get others to agree with how much he loves life! He is so intrigued by it all; how the living organisms form, how they live in an ecosystem, how they thrive. Honestly, I was like his wife when he was trying to explain to me how life is. Oh please! I do not care about what you see through a microscope; I have other things to do. Or like his wife had told him "I am very glad you found a new species of rotifer, and I love that you can get such a kick out of it, but I am going out now to work in the garden. Please don't call me again." Then, to try to persuade others to love what he loves, he brings a species to a Christmas gathering to show his nieces and nephews! They laugh!!! They do not care about how much he cares for these animalcules, or they do care about the fact that he cares...but they do not care about those animalcules. Do you understand what I mean?
His awe of how the sediments settle in the jar, and how each rock is its' own world is a bit annoying to me. He is doing what a writer is doing, talking about what interests him, but wow. He explains too excitedly and with much detail, which is a good writing technique, about these animalcules. The details he gives should be for topics which can interest many people; these small molecules, not many people care about. Although, of course, obviously, there are people who are interested. I really do not know what else to say about this, except that his information about all of the small living things were very overwhelming to me. One thing I did get from the article though was that there are worlds inside of worlds. I guess I cannot really just care about the world I live on, I have to be conscience of the other unseen worlds around me...

Benjamin Phelan, "How We Evolve"

Phelan is worried that humans will become extinct soon, because we are not going to be able to adapt to the catastrophes that are changing the world we live in. "The global climate is changing too violently for DNA to respond by fiddling around with heat regulation and hair thickness; forests everywhere are being clear-cut too quickly for their inhabitants to adjust, so food chains are coming undone...and a nuclear disaster would constitute a catastrophe many orders of magnitude greater than what nature could really absorb." Could he convey how upset he is any more than this? Phelan even adds what Ehrlich said about evolution "The fate of our civilization, and maybe our species may be determined by the next five generations. So I don't give a shit what's happening to our genetic evolution." Ehrlich does not care about how our genes have to adapt to the changes, we need to make changes. Phelan agrees with this when he says we need to "avert a self-inflicted extinction." Our decisions, our actions, are the reasons for this downfall. We need to change our ways in order to help the world grow stronger, and to allow us to evolve.
I believe that in order for us to evolve, we must be able to live through catastrophic events. We do not need to change physically, in order to prove that we have evolved. Our minds can evolve; the way we think and the way we make decisions to help one another can show how much we evolved. We are not primitive beings who only believe in "survival of the fittest." We care for others and want them to succeed and live happily and healthfully, so we try our best to help. This is an example of evolution. We do not need to lose our useless pinky-toes to show that we have evolved. We need to overcome the natural disasters that we helped bring about, and show that we can live through rough times with the way we are now.

Ethics of Change- Reverse Outline

What should we do about climate change?
-science, ethical, should, conflict, questions

Climate change raises a number of ethical questions
-future generations, evaluate, change, respond, death

Many ethical questions can be settled by common sense
-philosophy, harm, equipped(potential to change), victim(future generations), compensate

Climate change will cause harm
-tropical distress, climate statistics, shortages, deaths, change in climate, estimations

In going about our daily lives
-everyday life, pollution, we each contribute to catastrophes

Ethics of costs and benefits
-conservative living, weighing costs and benefits, pros and cons, natural disasters

The ethical basis of cost-benefit
-costs, comparing and contrasting costs, economics, reactions, ethical vs. unethical, urgent

Those two issues are connected
-future vs. present, discount rate, value

The richer future
-material goods and services, value, diminishing marginal value, maximize well being, prioritarianism and utilitarianism.

Market Discount Rates?
-well-being less valuable in old age than in youth, catastrophic outcomes, ethical as well as scientific problems, work to resolve them

John Broome, "The Effects of Climate Change"

John Broome says "The costs of mitigating climate change are the sacrifices the present generation will have to make to reduce greenhouse gases. We will have to travel less and better insulate our homes. We will have to eat less red meat. We will have to live less lavishly." Basically, in order for the future generations of people to live "better lives", we must presently stop ourselves from overindulging and we have to be considerate of the people of the future. We cannot just think of the present and live in the moment, as many of us do. You have all heard "We only have one life, we should live it to the fullest". Well, this is a selfish thought to Broome because then we are not thinking of others, only ourselves. When we only think of ourselves, then we tend to harm others. "...sometimes you cannot avoid harming someone, and sometimes you may do it accidentally without realizing it. But whenever you cause harm, you should normally compensate the victim." Since we are causing harm to the future generation of people, Broome suggests that we change our way of life to incorporate the needs of the future. We cannot just worry about the children that are living now, we have to make the world a better place for the children who will be born in the next years.
The money market displays how people think; in terms of how great the benefits are now, compared to later. If we take care of the children now, then there will be less sick elderly folk later. If we can become wealthy now, then who cares about being rich when we are old and wrinkled? We are in a state of mind where we just want to live for the moment, because this is the time when we experience many things and want to enjoy every moment of it. People are afraid of what will happen in the future, that they would rather just enjoy the time now, in kind of a "been there, done that" mentality. If anything happens, at least they got to do what they wanted, right? This is a selfish way to think, but people will be people and this is just how the world is. Not everybody will live for a long period of time. Not every child that can be born, will be born. There has to be natural disasters which will affect birth rates and the lives of people. As harsh and as sad as it may sound, that is life. I believe that whatever happens, happens for a reason. People see the benefit of living their life now, concerning those who they love; rather than the people in the future, people they do not know and will not know. We cannot help everybody though, we can only do so much and help those that are with us now. We are not super heroes, when our time is up; it is up. The future generations of people will be able to take care of themselves. Just as we have faced many problems, people in the future will face problems. Whether the problems occurred because of past decisions or not, they will fight through it if they want to live. We, in the present time, should worry about what is affecting us right now. We will not live 100 years from now; so when we deal with our problems, only then can we help others.

Blogging is...

For me, blogging is a writing experience that I feel is useful, but that can get annoying to work on at times. I would rather just talk about what I want and bring up discussions about the dilemmas of everyday scenarios instead of writing about, for example, what Shakespeare wrote in his play. I want to be able to write what I want, and still get the credit for my blogs- creative writing! Overall though, I cannot complain too much. I have gotten feedback from students and the professor which helped improve my writing. Also, having to write about the scientific articles has made me focus more on what the articles are about and it has made me better understand what I read. I think after this though, I will just stick to writing on my spare time, in the privacy of my journal ;).

Are You a Writer?

I am a writer, I am! Anybody who expresses their thoughts onto a sheet of paper, I believe, is a writer. To write a piece, involves the use of a pen or pencil and paper. The only difference there is between writers is how well he or she expresses their thoughts; but as long as you put something onto a sheet of paper, you are a writer. Maybe you are not a famous writer, but none the less you are a writer whether you like to write or not.

We are in an era of creative destruction

"What happens when you go into one of these periods is that before you get to the point of reconstruction, things have to fall apart." John Elkington said this to Michael Specter after telling him that "We are in an era of creative destruction." This is one of a few things I could agree on after reading this article. Everybody needs to go through the rough patches, and low times in order to recover, heal and then value what we lost. If we always have whatever we want, then we will never know what it is like to lose something. The fact of the matter is that everything, before we know it, will be gone. In order to prevent us from completely wasting a source, we need to suffer a bit, if I may so, and learn to live with a little bit or none of the resource. That will teach us a lesson about rationing and being conscientious of how much we use. This in turn will help us have the resources for a much longer period of time. I think the concept of food miles is also a very smart idea. The emission of carbon from airplanes, trains, trucks, etc. is disastrous and the more we consumers (of the states) buy from across the world; when we have the items right here in our own states, the faster the world will succumb to global warming. We need to either A.) by fruits and vegetables that were locally grown or B.) Plant our own produce! That would use much less packaging material and less carbon would be emitted since food miles would not rack up.
I believe that each and every one of us contributes to global warming. I just believe that my carbon footprint is just not as large as other peoples' are. One reason I believe that I DO contribute to global warming is because I buy clothing online. I love the convenience of having the items sent to me, and being able to find great deals online. The consequence of this pleasure is that the clothes I buy are being transported to me from Ohio, California or whatever other state by brown UPS trucks that emit black, nasty smoke. The smoke effects us all, and is burning more holes in the already "wedge of cheese"-like atmosphere we have. The exhaust is seeping through our nostrils and into our lungs. Those of you who have asthma, me included, tell your lungs I am sorry for the pain. You do not deserve to suffer because I do not want to go to the mall and walk around aimlessly for hours. That being said, and after reading the article- I will try to not shop online as much as I do.