Responses 6-10

Web Response

I looked at the website for the wildlife conservation society. The website was highly informative, as well as fun to browse. It featured large color pictures as well as brief information on several endangered species that the WCS works to protect, including birds, bears, elephants, and many others. The website described many different “missions” or challenges that the WCS is currently working on. They have teams of field scientists devoted to researching various threats to wildlife health, including diseases, pollution, deforestation, and others. They also have veterinarians that do a lot of work with zoo animals, making sure that the many species (the web site said 1400) that are held captive in zoos receive appropriate care. This means catering to their unique dietary and behavioral habits, and providing medical and even dental care. They also use zoo animals as means for researching ways to help wild animals.

The WCS is not only involved in helping wild animals directly, they also do lots of work with rural communities. They have programs to help rural farming communities in underprivileged areas develop organic and sustainable farming methods, to help reduce their impact on the wildlife surrounding their communities, as well as to increase the revenue for the community by helping them to produce high quality organic products. They also have programs encouraging ecotourism in places such as Africa and South America­­. The website explains that ecotourism can produce more income from a given area than would be produced by developing or deforesting that area; this means more revenue for the communities as well as saving forest and wildlife. Overall I thought it was a great website, it was very informative, and enjoyable to browse. I learned a lot I didn’t know about the WCS.

 

Video Response

For my second video response I watched the film King Corn, a documentary by two college graduates who wanted to explore the corn industry. They did this by contacting a corn farmer in Iowa and getting permission to plant an acre of corn on their land. The idea was to watch the corn grow and then sell it, so they could see the process from start to finish. The movie started out very informative, a lot like Food Inc., talking about the industrial food system and the prevalence of refined corn products in processed food. After that it got really slow- just watching them day after day pursuing their corn patch. They started in the middle of winter, so not much actually happened until about 40 minutes into the film.

In the mean time they explored the process of applying for subsidies as corn farmers. This basically consisted of them walking into an office and being handed a $28 check for saying that they intended to plant an acre of corn. The movie was entertaining, but I don’t think they really “uncovered the corn industry” like they proposed in the beginning, the only thing I really learned is the basics behind farming it.  They basically just hung out and planted corn- using the equipment they borrowed from the farmer each step (planting, spraying, watering, etc.) only took about 20 minutes for their single acre. One cool thing they did do is sit down and figure out how much of their acre would be exported, made into animal feed, or food products, etc. Overall I thought it was an entertaining, mildly informational film.

 

Article Response

I read the article about the scientific community in Gaviotas, by Alan Weismann. Gaviotas is a South American community of over 200 that started out as a research project in the nineteen seventies. The community has windmills, wind powered hot water heaters, solar energy, and water filters that make it possible to drink otherwise toxic water. I thought this article was really inspirational. Not only did they find ways to accommodate all of their basic living needs with no emissions, they are actually creating emission free industry. According to the article a pollution free factory in Gaviotan is processing Caribbean pines into a petroleum alternative that can be used for a variety of products such as paint, cosmetics, and even medicines. They also produce their own food through hydroponic farming, solving the issue of unfertile soil.

What is really significant is that this experiment has shown that communities can exist in places that people thought to be inhabitable due to the condition of the water or soil. One of the locals remarked, “If we can do it here, it can happen anywhere”. As our population grows, as well as our awareness that our current energy and food production methods are unsustainable, this place provides an example of how changing the way we think about lifestyle and industry can open up a lot of opportunities for growth. The newly planted pine trees are also increasing numbers of deer, hawks, and anteaters by providing new habitat. The people in Gaviotas really have it all; they produce food, medicine, marketable products, and energy, all without harming the wildlife around them, and in some ways, helping in thrive.

 

Article Response

I read the article “Eating Mercury” by Alexandra Gross. The article was about a study that was done in 2009 finding mercury in many products containing high fructose corn syrup. The studies were done by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), but none of the products found to be contaminated were recalled because the studies are being investigated for legitimacy by manufacturers and corn industry officials. The president of the Corn Refiners association claims that the studies drew unfair conclusions from irrelevant data, much of which is FDA data from back in 2005. According to the IATP studies the mercury was a result of use of outdated equipment.

I like that the article was written from an objective view. Because high fructose corn syrup is a current “hot topic” in the media, I find it hard to believe a lot of the news surrounding it because I think a lot of people are just jumping on the latest bandwagon. I find this unfortunate because I think it is a really valid health concern and it’s hard for people to take it seriously when there are so many non-credible sources basically bashing it.  Though the point of the article seems to be to illuminate the mercury findings it also makes points for the other side. For example, it points out that the mercury found in the samples is an inorganic form that is much less threatening than the organic form usually found in fish. Statements like this make me trust the article more because it seems to be intended to educate; if the author was writing purely to persuade against corn syrup they probably would have excluded this detail, knowing that most people wouldn’t know the difference, therefor making more of an impact through fear.

 

Article Response

The last article I read was “Vegetarian is the New Prius” by Kathy Freston. The article was about the environmental impact of producing industrial meat, mainly greenhouse gas emissions. According to the article, “animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions… 37% of our methane, and 65% of our nitrous oxide (emissions).” Additionally, it points out that a massive amount of crops must be grown in order to supply cheap feed for these animals, reducing the resources we have available to grow healthy people food.

What I really liked about this article is that it pointed out that people can make a big difference for the environment by doing small everyday things. Many people think that in order to make a difference they would have to have a ton of money to spend of expensive energy saving appliances and hybrid cars- so they just don’t bother. This article points out that the average American would make a much larger and faster impact on our emissions by switching to vegetarian than they would buying a Prius.

While I don’t think it’s practical to encourage everyone to be a vegetarian (one because it’s not necessarily a healthy choice for everyone, and two, because you can’t realistically expect that large of a lifestyle change from most people) I do think that more emphasis should be put on eating less meat. Most Americans eat way more than the suggested number of calories of meat proteins, and our lifestyle preferences are slowly spreading to developing countries as their economies begin to allow a more “western” lifestyle.  If everyone would reduce the amount of meat they ate by half, or even just a third, it could have massive environmental and health impacts. This is the kind of thing that more people need to know because it’s in nearly everyone’s scope of influence.