I regularly read no impact man. I think that you should too. I once wrote an email to Colin (no impact man's real name). I simply wanted to let him know that I appreciated how his blog had a similar topic that I wanted mine to have, but he had a way of ALWAYS putting a positive spin on everything he writes. I fear that I often come across as bitter and upset. I'm not really. It just seems to be my writing style. Colin, on the other hand, will sometimes apologize for a post that he felt was too negative, when in reality it would not have even compared in negativity to my more positive posts. That may be a slight exageration, but I really feel that my writing poorly reflects my actual feelings, whereas his blogs accurately reflect his feelings. OK, I don't know what his feelings are, but his posts accurately reflect my feelings.
He posted the other day about whether it would be better if everyone committed suicide because it would drastically reduce human impact on the earth. Of course I feel that is not what the world is about, but I think that the concept is thought provoking.
Environmentally, no matter what we do, we will have an impact. Breathing consumes oxygen and produces carbon dioxide, which is classified by the EPA as a pollutant. Most of us in life will make a greater impact than just the carbon dioxide that we produce. Let's start at birth. How much energy is in a hospital to deliver a baby? Don't get me wrong, I understand and believe that a birth is worth a little extra energy to help assure the life of the newborn, but is a hospital really necessary? Sometimes, sure, but always? Likewise, C-sections are amazing procedures that save babies and mothers. That's great. They are necessary in about 1-2% of births. They are used in some hospitals in more than 40% of births. That is waste. It's a waste of energy, a waste of resources and a waste of health. Sorry, that was a tangent I didn't intend to follow.
What other impacts can we make in life? Life is about a lot more than environmental impact. If that is all that life was about suicide would be a viable option. Fortunately life is about making impacts. When it really comes down to the purpose of life, environmental impact is of a minimal importance. The impact that we have on others is huge. What do we do to lift those around us? What do we do to make the world a better place? How can we improve the lives of everyone on this earth.
While I don't think that environmental impact is the basis for evaluating our lives, I think it is telling. What does it say about a person if they are concerned about the state of the earth for generations to come? I would say that person is caring about others and trying to improve the condition of the earth for future generations. That's a positive impact on others and is good.
Contrarily, what does it say about a person when they 'don't care' about the mass quantities of resources that he is using and the impact that it has on those around him and those who will come in the future? Is that a person that is making a positive impact?
I want to make some clarifications. I do think that some negative environmental impacts are well worth it when they contribute to greater positive impacts of a different nature. However, I think that those impacts need to be considered and compared with what is being gained when doing good.
Make an impact in life. Do something to help others. Sure, helping prevent the degredation of the environment is a good impact, but making others smile and helping individuals do things they couldn't do themselves are also important impacts. Make your impact on earth worth the environmental costs.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Plastic water bottles
I just got back from a conference in Phoenix on obesity. It's hard to live environmentally on the road. I used way more disposable dishes than I would have liked. I ate more meat than I would have liked, and I was in Phoenix where everything is air conditioned all the time.
There were also a couple of things that I felt went well. I did a lot of walking and carpooling and I shared a room with others. The big thing was that I never bought a disposable water bottle. That is one of my new goals in life, not buy disposable water bottles. In fact, I'm going to make a valiant attempt to not buy any beverages in disposable containers. They are extremely wasteful. Some people pay more per gallon for water than they do for gasoline. And they could be getting the water for free or virtually free from a tap. To exemplify this point, the hotel I was staying in had a 1 quart bottle of water in the room for the bargain price of $5.25.
So why is bottled water so bad? It's not so much that the water is bad, or that it's overpriced; the problem is the container and the fact that the container makes it portable. They use petroleum to make the plastic containers that will later just be thrown away or 'down-cycled'. Then with the new container, they use mass amounts of petroleum to ship it around the world providing over-priced water in petroleum packaging. It gives everyone the convenient opportunity to pay more to pollute the world when they could simply fill a glass with water from the tap for a very low price. Or you could even go to a public drinking fountain, forgo the glass and have free water.
The funny thing is that 40% of bottled water is tap water put into a bottle and even the really expensive bottled water can't be distinguished from tap water in taste tests. Do the world a favor, stop drinking out of plastic bottles.
Oh, and if you have a Nalgene bottle, I learned at the obesity conference that the bisphenol A that can leach from Nalgene bottles and other plastics is associated with obesity (as well as other issues such as cancer, etc.). My family has moved to stainless steel and glass for our drinking pleasures.
The Woulfes just commented that they thought that the Nalgene bottle thing was silly and there are many other things that cause obesity to a greater extent than bisphenol A. Eating too much, for example, causes obesity. I agree with the Woulfes completely, but I thought it was interesting that there was any link at all between plastic bottles and obesity, so it tied in well. Getting rid of Nalgene bottles would be a very poor weight loss method.
There were also a couple of things that I felt went well. I did a lot of walking and carpooling and I shared a room with others. The big thing was that I never bought a disposable water bottle. That is one of my new goals in life, not buy disposable water bottles. In fact, I'm going to make a valiant attempt to not buy any beverages in disposable containers. They are extremely wasteful. Some people pay more per gallon for water than they do for gasoline. And they could be getting the water for free or virtually free from a tap. To exemplify this point, the hotel I was staying in had a 1 quart bottle of water in the room for the bargain price of $5.25.
So why is bottled water so bad? It's not so much that the water is bad, or that it's overpriced; the problem is the container and the fact that the container makes it portable. They use petroleum to make the plastic containers that will later just be thrown away or 'down-cycled'. Then with the new container, they use mass amounts of petroleum to ship it around the world providing over-priced water in petroleum packaging. It gives everyone the convenient opportunity to pay more to pollute the world when they could simply fill a glass with water from the tap for a very low price. Or you could even go to a public drinking fountain, forgo the glass and have free water.
The funny thing is that 40% of bottled water is tap water put into a bottle and even the really expensive bottled water can't be distinguished from tap water in taste tests. Do the world a favor, stop drinking out of plastic bottles.
Oh, and if you have a Nalgene bottle, I learned at the obesity conference that the bisphenol A that can leach from Nalgene bottles and other plastics is associated with obesity (as well as other issues such as cancer, etc.). My family has moved to stainless steel and glass for our drinking pleasures.
The Woulfes just commented that they thought that the Nalgene bottle thing was silly and there are many other things that cause obesity to a greater extent than bisphenol A. Eating too much, for example, causes obesity. I agree with the Woulfes completely, but I thought it was interesting that there was any link at all between plastic bottles and obesity, so it tied in well. Getting rid of Nalgene bottles would be a very poor weight loss method.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Crisis
So, we are in the midst of an energy crisis. The whole fossil fuel thing is not as permanent as some people would like. And we are in the midst of a global warming thing because CO2 is accumulating and making the planet hotter. And we're having some food crisis because food prices are going up partly because the cost to transport the food is going up quickly (the fossil fuel thing) and partly because we've decided it would be a good idea to use our food to fuel our cars. And then there's the economy. I'm not going to touch that because I'm far from an expert (notice that not being an expert has never stopped me before... this may be the beginning of something new, although I doubt it).
I had this incredible idea today. I was thinking of the crisis that we're facing and wanted to find a solution (as if I'm the one with the answers). So what are the fundamental problems. Too much CO2, not enough energy and not enough food. The solution that I came up with was to find a way to use CO2 as a means of producing energy and food. That would kill all three problems with a single solution.
As I thought about it, my mind drifted back to chemistry classes. CO2 has carbon in it (that's the C). Fossil fuels are long carbon chains that burn. Food is made up of fats and carbohydrates, both of which are long chains of carbons with some hydrogens and oxygens stuck to them. The problem is that we have to come up with the energy to make the carbons stick together, that doesn't just happen.
I figured that solar power is the only way to go for an energy source. The wind just isn't reliable enough, so we're going to use solar. Then we get into all the really difficult stuff. How do you get the fuel and food to the people? I'm thinking they will each need a little production plant of their own so we don't have to transport stuff and thus deplete the energy that we are producing.
I hereby patent the plant. You know, those green things that are all around that use solar energy to convert CO2 into starches (can plants make fats? I'm guessing they can based on the avocado, but I'm not positive).
Here's how it works. You find seeds for plants that grow things that you like to eat. You put the seeds in the ground and provide water and dead plants as fertilizer. The plant grows and provides you food which will also provide you the energy you need to accomplish your tasks. If you have extra food you can give it to friends. You may also want to grow larger plants like trees so that you can use that stored energy to heat your house. You won't need fuel for your car, that's why you have legs (the food you grow acts as the fuel for your legs). Any extra money earned from food grown you can go ahead and send to me. I did just patent the idea so I do deserve a little kickback.
Isn't it interesting how we have taken a principle that has been so simple from the very beginning of life and we've complicated it. We've made it this complex mess of politics, pollution and money, yet the solution is at our fingertips. We've had the solution since the beginning of our existence. Why is it so difficult to go back to the solution? Why do we seek to further complicate things?
I realize that if we were to truly simplify I wouldn't have this computer. And my schooling would be a total waste (I study obesity management and weight issues, which would be nonexistent if people actually had to work for their food). Still, I think I'm ready to take a progressive step toward the solution. I'm ready to take a step toward the past.
I had this incredible idea today. I was thinking of the crisis that we're facing and wanted to find a solution (as if I'm the one with the answers). So what are the fundamental problems. Too much CO2, not enough energy and not enough food. The solution that I came up with was to find a way to use CO2 as a means of producing energy and food. That would kill all three problems with a single solution.
As I thought about it, my mind drifted back to chemistry classes. CO2 has carbon in it (that's the C). Fossil fuels are long carbon chains that burn. Food is made up of fats and carbohydrates, both of which are long chains of carbons with some hydrogens and oxygens stuck to them. The problem is that we have to come up with the energy to make the carbons stick together, that doesn't just happen.
I figured that solar power is the only way to go for an energy source. The wind just isn't reliable enough, so we're going to use solar. Then we get into all the really difficult stuff. How do you get the fuel and food to the people? I'm thinking they will each need a little production plant of their own so we don't have to transport stuff and thus deplete the energy that we are producing.
I hereby patent the plant. You know, those green things that are all around that use solar energy to convert CO2 into starches (can plants make fats? I'm guessing they can based on the avocado, but I'm not positive).
Here's how it works. You find seeds for plants that grow things that you like to eat. You put the seeds in the ground and provide water and dead plants as fertilizer. The plant grows and provides you food which will also provide you the energy you need to accomplish your tasks. If you have extra food you can give it to friends. You may also want to grow larger plants like trees so that you can use that stored energy to heat your house. You won't need fuel for your car, that's why you have legs (the food you grow acts as the fuel for your legs). Any extra money earned from food grown you can go ahead and send to me. I did just patent the idea so I do deserve a little kickback.
Isn't it interesting how we have taken a principle that has been so simple from the very beginning of life and we've complicated it. We've made it this complex mess of politics, pollution and money, yet the solution is at our fingertips. We've had the solution since the beginning of our existence. Why is it so difficult to go back to the solution? Why do we seek to further complicate things?
I realize that if we were to truly simplify I wouldn't have this computer. And my schooling would be a total waste (I study obesity management and weight issues, which would be nonexistent if people actually had to work for their food). Still, I think I'm ready to take a progressive step toward the solution. I'm ready to take a step toward the past.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Ethiopia
I always struggle to keep up on sporadic bloggers... I am one of them. Hopefully I will gain some consistency after June 5 (written and oral comps will be over). Today I had something that has been on my mind so I'm going to post, despite the fact that I should really be studying.
I'm a child of the 80's. Well, I was born in the 70's, but most of my childhood memories are from the 80's. I remember vividly the commercials on TV asking for donations to help the people of Ethiopia who were starving because of a drought that had lasted a long time. There were pictures of sad kids and mothers who looked really hungry. I never donated, but some of those images really stuck with me. Here in the Western world, we have it really well. I have never been deprived of food (except for long bike rides when I'm not bright enough to bring enough food to get me home).
You're right, I don't blog about Ethiopia or droughts in Africa. I blog about bike related stuff and simplicity. Today I'm going to add ethics to the mix and talk a little about ethanol as a fuel. For some time the US government has subsidized farmers who grow (or don't grow) crops such as corn. This keeps cost of US corn low and makes it so poorer countries can't compete with our prices (like most of Africa). Most Americans don't concern themselves too much with that idea because the subsidies do keep many farmers in business who would otherwise really be struggling. I don't know what makes US farmers better than Africans, but that isn't the point that I want to address today.
Currently corn prices are sky rocketing (along with other grains that can be used to make fuels such as bio diesel) and the farmers are in a better situation. I don't think the subsidies have stopped, but I could be wrong on that. The reason prices are rising is because we are developing technologies to turn these crops into fuel. While it may help us beat peak oil (which I think is approaching quickly), I think it could have some catastrophic consequences.
It's simple economics (I say that, but I'm really not an economist). Demand for corn is high because it is now not only a food, but also a fuel. So the prices go up for foods that contain corn. (try to find a processed food that doesn't contain corn syrup...there aren't many.) And this turns into a great ethical decision.
The free market economy that we live in allows supply and demand to regulate prices (with a little intervention). Now we have the wealthy who can afford fuel for their cars and the poor who can't afford food. Is it OK (ethical) for the wealthy to have luxuries that directly result in others starving? Oh, I just found a cool website. Put in your income and it will tell you how rich you are compared to the rest of the world. I'm in the top 13%. The next time you go to fill up hour car with gas, think that when you pull that nozzle out of the holder, you are pulling a cob of corn out of the mouth of someone who is hungry.
The big problem with the whole thing is that like many things in the US, the consumer will be distanced from the consequence of their consumption so that the consumer doesn't see the harm. I really think we need to get rid of that practice. How much would it influence your choices if you could see the landfills and the pollution and the division of wealth that come from our consumption? I think that it would affect many people greatly, but people don't want to worry about it (and the companies that produce stuff certainly don't want you thinking of it). It's that separation that keeps us making consumption choices that are bad for the environment and bad for other people.
Did I miss something on this, like I did with the China thing? I don't think so, but let me know if you disagree.
I'm a child of the 80's. Well, I was born in the 70's, but most of my childhood memories are from the 80's. I remember vividly the commercials on TV asking for donations to help the people of Ethiopia who were starving because of a drought that had lasted a long time. There were pictures of sad kids and mothers who looked really hungry. I never donated, but some of those images really stuck with me. Here in the Western world, we have it really well. I have never been deprived of food (except for long bike rides when I'm not bright enough to bring enough food to get me home).
You're right, I don't blog about Ethiopia or droughts in Africa. I blog about bike related stuff and simplicity. Today I'm going to add ethics to the mix and talk a little about ethanol as a fuel. For some time the US government has subsidized farmers who grow (or don't grow) crops such as corn. This keeps cost of US corn low and makes it so poorer countries can't compete with our prices (like most of Africa). Most Americans don't concern themselves too much with that idea because the subsidies do keep many farmers in business who would otherwise really be struggling. I don't know what makes US farmers better than Africans, but that isn't the point that I want to address today.
Currently corn prices are sky rocketing (along with other grains that can be used to make fuels such as bio diesel) and the farmers are in a better situation. I don't think the subsidies have stopped, but I could be wrong on that. The reason prices are rising is because we are developing technologies to turn these crops into fuel. While it may help us beat peak oil (which I think is approaching quickly), I think it could have some catastrophic consequences.
It's simple economics (I say that, but I'm really not an economist). Demand for corn is high because it is now not only a food, but also a fuel. So the prices go up for foods that contain corn. (try to find a processed food that doesn't contain corn syrup...there aren't many.) And this turns into a great ethical decision.
The free market economy that we live in allows supply and demand to regulate prices (with a little intervention). Now we have the wealthy who can afford fuel for their cars and the poor who can't afford food. Is it OK (ethical) for the wealthy to have luxuries that directly result in others starving? Oh, I just found a cool website. Put in your income and it will tell you how rich you are compared to the rest of the world. I'm in the top 13%. The next time you go to fill up hour car with gas, think that when you pull that nozzle out of the holder, you are pulling a cob of corn out of the mouth of someone who is hungry.
The big problem with the whole thing is that like many things in the US, the consumer will be distanced from the consequence of their consumption so that the consumer doesn't see the harm. I really think we need to get rid of that practice. How much would it influence your choices if you could see the landfills and the pollution and the division of wealth that come from our consumption? I think that it would affect many people greatly, but people don't want to worry about it (and the companies that produce stuff certainly don't want you thinking of it). It's that separation that keeps us making consumption choices that are bad for the environment and bad for other people.
Did I miss something on this, like I did with the China thing? I don't think so, but let me know if you disagree.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Simplicity vs. Environmentalism
Phil commented the other day to contend with my distaste for cell phones. I agree with almost everything that Phil said. Cell phones probably don't pollute any more than the wireless phone that I have at home (as long as I don't trade it out every year for a new one), and the cell phone could certainly be handy if I ever get the chance to live off the grid. The main problem with cell phones is that people consider them expendable and they end up contributing a lot of nasty electronic waste to landfills. I agree with Phil, aren't necessarily a terrible invention and they may even provide opportunities that wouldn't otherwise be there.
I'm not going to speak for Phil because I don't really know Phil, but I think our differences lie in the words simplicity and environmentalism. It seemed to me that Phil took an environmental approach to the discussion, which is fine. I agree completely that the environment is important and something we need to be working to save. My main goals in life, however revolve more around simplicity than environmentalism. The reason that I don't like cell phones (beyond the fact that most people dispose of them far too regularly) is their social impact. Will the social impact of cell phones have a negative impact on the environment? Not that I can see, but I do see the impact on people and communication.
I have been in college since the late 90s and things have changed a lot since then. I used to be able to walk out of a huge class, find someone heading in the same direction as me and start a conversation. Now I leave a class and almost everyone either gets out a cell phone and makes a call or puts anti-socials (ipod or the like) in their ears so that it's more difficult to talk with new people. Sure, I could get my own cell phone and then I too could make a call at the end of class and have someone to talk to, but I just don't feel that is good for our society. Communicating with people face to face and interacting is an important part of life. Meeting people (not on facebook) and learning the social skills to interact are important. Sure, we are moving to a different type of communication, but I don't think it is a good move.
I'll give another example. My wife and I went out to lunch for our anniversary. Being the cheapskate that I am, it was a pretty casual place (I did, however, carry the tray for her). Anyway, as we were standing in line there was a couple behind us, the boyfriend was talking on a cell phone while is girlfriend stood with her arms crossed looking grumpy (probably because her boyfriend took her out for lunch and then talked on the cell phone instead of to her). Then as we were eating two girls came in to the restaurant, both on cell phones. It was sort of like they were spending time together as friends... except their attention was on the phone. In short, I don't think cell phones promote healthy relationships. Of course they can be used appropriately and that's not a big deal, but they have changed the way people interact and I don't think it is progress.
My disdain for cell phones resolves around my ideals of simplicity. I want to focus my interactions with people on real life, in person conversations (except, of course, for this blog which is generally anonymous and a way of communicating with people I will likely never know and really not even knowing who or how many I am communicating with). I believe that the most important parts of life are the personal interactions and relationships that we develop. Living a simple life is about the simple every day relationships that make life full. Sure, cell phones could facilitate communication, but when it gets in the way of your present life, it's unnecessarily complicating things.
I'm not going to speak for Phil because I don't really know Phil, but I think our differences lie in the words simplicity and environmentalism. It seemed to me that Phil took an environmental approach to the discussion, which is fine. I agree completely that the environment is important and something we need to be working to save. My main goals in life, however revolve more around simplicity than environmentalism. The reason that I don't like cell phones (beyond the fact that most people dispose of them far too regularly) is their social impact. Will the social impact of cell phones have a negative impact on the environment? Not that I can see, but I do see the impact on people and communication.
I have been in college since the late 90s and things have changed a lot since then. I used to be able to walk out of a huge class, find someone heading in the same direction as me and start a conversation. Now I leave a class and almost everyone either gets out a cell phone and makes a call or puts anti-socials (ipod or the like) in their ears so that it's more difficult to talk with new people. Sure, I could get my own cell phone and then I too could make a call at the end of class and have someone to talk to, but I just don't feel that is good for our society. Communicating with people face to face and interacting is an important part of life. Meeting people (not on facebook) and learning the social skills to interact are important. Sure, we are moving to a different type of communication, but I don't think it is a good move.
I'll give another example. My wife and I went out to lunch for our anniversary. Being the cheapskate that I am, it was a pretty casual place (I did, however, carry the tray for her). Anyway, as we were standing in line there was a couple behind us, the boyfriend was talking on a cell phone while is girlfriend stood with her arms crossed looking grumpy (probably because her boyfriend took her out for lunch and then talked on the cell phone instead of to her). Then as we were eating two girls came in to the restaurant, both on cell phones. It was sort of like they were spending time together as friends... except their attention was on the phone. In short, I don't think cell phones promote healthy relationships. Of course they can be used appropriately and that's not a big deal, but they have changed the way people interact and I don't think it is progress.
My disdain for cell phones resolves around my ideals of simplicity. I want to focus my interactions with people on real life, in person conversations (except, of course, for this blog which is generally anonymous and a way of communicating with people I will likely never know and really not even knowing who or how many I am communicating with). I believe that the most important parts of life are the personal interactions and relationships that we develop. Living a simple life is about the simple every day relationships that make life full. Sure, cell phones could facilitate communication, but when it gets in the way of your present life, it's unnecessarily complicating things.
Friday, December 14, 2007
All in
I've thought about this phrase quite a few times recently. I like it. I generally think of poker when I think of "all in", it's that point when you have a hand that you want to put everything that you have on the line. The beauty of it in poker is that it doesn't matter whether you have a good hand or not, you can bluff or you could have a royal flush. Going all in simply means that you are putting everything on the line.
So I'm interested in helping the environment, but am I "all in"? Unfortunately I don't think that I am. My family still owns a car (and we will own it until I can convince my wife to sell it). We don't recycle grey water. We don't produce any of our own electricity, and depend completely on incoming electricity and gas for our home. I sometimes take longer showers than I need to since I usually take them at school and I don't have to pay for it.
What does it take to go all in? I want to, but why haven't I if I'm really that interested? First off, it takes a lot of work to recycle grey water and finding alternative means of producing electricity is expensive or requires a lot of work. And we do still use our car occasionally, so it may not be the time to sell it yet.
Oh, but I have plans. The next time we move, we're building a house with solar panels and excellent insulation and grey water recycling and everything else green that you can think of. Did I think I was going to do that the last time we moved? Probably. But last time we didn't have a whole lot of money to work with. Next time will be different.
Why do I put off the major changes that I want to make? This stuff is really important to me, but I just don't do anything except plan. That is one thing that I really admire about No Impact Man, he did it. He turned off the electricity to his Manhattan apartment and lived for a year with no electricity. That's admirable. Why don't I do it? Oh, I'm in a different situation. Local food is hard to find. our house would get REALLY COLD. Our pipes would likely freeze. I'm not home enough and it would be more of a burden on my wife than on my ( I sit in a heated office and work on the computer all day).
All I have are excuses, how do I get rid of excuses and start making a difference with my life?
"I want only to live in accord with the promptings of my true inner self. Why is that so very difficult?" --Hermann Hesse
So I'm interested in helping the environment, but am I "all in"? Unfortunately I don't think that I am. My family still owns a car (and we will own it until I can convince my wife to sell it). We don't recycle grey water. We don't produce any of our own electricity, and depend completely on incoming electricity and gas for our home. I sometimes take longer showers than I need to since I usually take them at school and I don't have to pay for it.
What does it take to go all in? I want to, but why haven't I if I'm really that interested? First off, it takes a lot of work to recycle grey water and finding alternative means of producing electricity is expensive or requires a lot of work. And we do still use our car occasionally, so it may not be the time to sell it yet.
Oh, but I have plans. The next time we move, we're building a house with solar panels and excellent insulation and grey water recycling and everything else green that you can think of. Did I think I was going to do that the last time we moved? Probably. But last time we didn't have a whole lot of money to work with. Next time will be different.
Why do I put off the major changes that I want to make? This stuff is really important to me, but I just don't do anything except plan. That is one thing that I really admire about No Impact Man, he did it. He turned off the electricity to his Manhattan apartment and lived for a year with no electricity. That's admirable. Why don't I do it? Oh, I'm in a different situation. Local food is hard to find. our house would get REALLY COLD. Our pipes would likely freeze. I'm not home enough and it would be more of a burden on my wife than on my ( I sit in a heated office and work on the computer all day).
All I have are excuses, how do I get rid of excuses and start making a difference with my life?
"I want only to live in accord with the promptings of my true inner self. Why is that so very difficult?" --Hermann Hesse
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Babies
It has been awhile, so I thought I would write. Really I like writing, but it has been a tough semester. Classes are almost over and this is going to be an entry before finals and then hopefully I'll post a little more frequently.
So Emily left a comment the other day asking about my thoughts on kids. I am of a religious persuasion that believes that we, like Adam, were commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth". When you go to environmental websites and the topic of children comes up it is often considered irresponsible to have kids because of global overpopulation and the resources that it takes to support a growing world population.
Here's how I see it. If you read the scripture where Adam is commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth", that is not all that the scripture says. Read it, it's Genesis 1:28, in the very same verse it talks about subduing and ruling over the earth. I recognize that some Christians believe that subduing and ruling over the earth means that the earth is God's gift for us to use. I have a hard time believing that God would like to see us hurting His creation. I believe that when God told Adam to subdue and rule over the earth, He was giving Adam a sort of stewardship, not to destroy the earth, but to regulate it so that resources could be shared and all generations would have access to the goods brought forth by God's creation.
I think that those two commandments go hand in hand. If we do not regulate the goods God has given us, we may not have what we need to raise our children, and He did also command to have children. As we prepare for our third child (expected in late January or early February), this does weigh on my mind. That is a big part of the reason I try to live lightly on the land, I want to leave the earth in good shape for my kids and I believe that God gave me stewardship over the land (along with everyone else who lives here), and expects me to take care of it until He returns. That is a major reason that I do not eat meat. I do not have anything morally or religiously against eating meat, but beef production is a major source of greenhouse gases, and more importantly, if land were used for growing grains and vegetables it would produce far more food to feed the world's people than using the grains to feed the cows that the people eat. Likewise I don't drive often because I know that it contributes to destroying the earth and I want to minimize that. I still have work to do on turning off lights, recycling grey water, buying local organic goods, etc, but I am taking actions to start doing my part.
In addition, I am trying to raise children who will tread lightly on the land. They too will have to preserve in order to enable their kids to have what they need. I am quite proud that my children do not know what McDonald's is. They have not asked for anything for Christmas because they haven't seen the ads. They know that paper goes in the recycle bin under the sink, food waste goes in the compost and non-recyclable stuff goes into the trash. They know they don't need to flush after urinating, but to flush after #2. They are simple things, but they help preserve the earth.
I recognize that with what the world as a whole is consuming, it may be taxing on the earth to have more kids, but I also feel that if managed correctly the earth can sustain us. We all must do our part to preserve the earth that God gave us.
Wow, I don't usually do the religion thing on this website... but I think this is important. So there is the answer to your question Emily.
So Emily left a comment the other day asking about my thoughts on kids. I am of a religious persuasion that believes that we, like Adam, were commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth". When you go to environmental websites and the topic of children comes up it is often considered irresponsible to have kids because of global overpopulation and the resources that it takes to support a growing world population.
Here's how I see it. If you read the scripture where Adam is commanded to "multiply and replenish the earth", that is not all that the scripture says. Read it, it's Genesis 1:28, in the very same verse it talks about subduing and ruling over the earth. I recognize that some Christians believe that subduing and ruling over the earth means that the earth is God's gift for us to use. I have a hard time believing that God would like to see us hurting His creation. I believe that when God told Adam to subdue and rule over the earth, He was giving Adam a sort of stewardship, not to destroy the earth, but to regulate it so that resources could be shared and all generations would have access to the goods brought forth by God's creation.
I think that those two commandments go hand in hand. If we do not regulate the goods God has given us, we may not have what we need to raise our children, and He did also command to have children. As we prepare for our third child (expected in late January or early February), this does weigh on my mind. That is a big part of the reason I try to live lightly on the land, I want to leave the earth in good shape for my kids and I believe that God gave me stewardship over the land (along with everyone else who lives here), and expects me to take care of it until He returns. That is a major reason that I do not eat meat. I do not have anything morally or religiously against eating meat, but beef production is a major source of greenhouse gases, and more importantly, if land were used for growing grains and vegetables it would produce far more food to feed the world's people than using the grains to feed the cows that the people eat. Likewise I don't drive often because I know that it contributes to destroying the earth and I want to minimize that. I still have work to do on turning off lights, recycling grey water, buying local organic goods, etc, but I am taking actions to start doing my part.
In addition, I am trying to raise children who will tread lightly on the land. They too will have to preserve in order to enable their kids to have what they need. I am quite proud that my children do not know what McDonald's is. They have not asked for anything for Christmas because they haven't seen the ads. They know that paper goes in the recycle bin under the sink, food waste goes in the compost and non-recyclable stuff goes into the trash. They know they don't need to flush after urinating, but to flush after #2. They are simple things, but they help preserve the earth.
I recognize that with what the world as a whole is consuming, it may be taxing on the earth to have more kids, but I also feel that if managed correctly the earth can sustain us. We all must do our part to preserve the earth that God gave us.
Wow, I don't usually do the religion thing on this website... but I think this is important. So there is the answer to your question Emily.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Being wrong... or unsure.
Do you know what I hate? Being wrong. Do you know what I hate even more than being wrong? Having others know that I'm wrong or having it pointed out to me. Some people seem to be OK with this. Some people have this ability to even admit that they have made mistakes and to tell others about them. My wife does this. I admire her (and anyone else who is able to openly admit mistakes) for being open and confident enough to admit mistakes. I wish I were more like that.
The other day I was doing something in the driveway and a neighbor from down the street approached me. We really don't know this particular neighbor all that well, so as he approached I was sort of excited to talk with him. Well he came to tell me that my chestnut trees were dying because I wasn't watering them. Then he left. As far as conversations go and getting to know neighbors, it was an utter disappointment. In fact, it sort of made me mad.
This is the point where I want to defend myself and say that I wasn't wrong... but I don't know that would be totally truthful. We have three chestnut trees in our yard that have always turned brown (and quite sickly looking) well before fall arrives (like June). I was of the impression that this was due to a tree disease, but I could be wrong. It could also be due to a tree disease that could be virtually eliminated by adequate water. In the end, I am pretty sure that watering the trees more regularly (or at least a couple of times) could have helped the trees.
So I was wrong, but I had some reasoning behind it. Unfortunately it is reasoning that I'm not completely sure about. For starters, the chestnut trees are horse chestnut trees, so the nuts are poisonous. What good is a poisonous nut? Then when the nuts fall, they fall in a spiky shell that stays in our yard leaving it quite inhospitable. As my wife and I talk about fixing up our house, we talk frequently about the yard. We are currently working on killing weeds so we can put in a front lawn. While I don't especially want to waste water on a front lawn, it will make the house look better, and the odds of us moving within a few years is pretty high. So I'm going against what I truly believe in order to improve resale value. I'm a sell-out and I hate it when I do that. If I were to really want to have grass somewhere, it would be in the back yard where my boys would be more likely to play in it. We haven't started that process because of the spiky things that make the back yard extremely painful to walk in. Since there is no grass in the back yard, we certainly haven't been watering it. And we haven't been going out of our way to water the trees (whose roots are under the "lawn" in the back yard) because they are the problem with the back yard. So the trees are dying.
Here's another issue that I have. Trees are essential for consuming carbon dioxide and cleaning pollution out of the air. I am all for trees and not depleting forests in order to maintain the air quality in our environment. I am also aware that imported trees often consume far more water than their native counterparts, which contributes to the drought conditions we are experiencing and plummeting water tables. So what is worse, wasting water to keep the trees healthy, or letting the trees die and wasting big carbon dioxide consumers that are needed in the area? Frankly, I think that I should be conserving the water and that people should drive less and use less electricity so that we didn't have the air pollution problems, but that's not our current situation, is it?
Earlier this week, my wife asked about my ultimate life, where we would be and what we would be doing. I told her I didn't know... and I still don't. Here's the thing. I am studying how the built environment influences transportation habits and health of a community and the members of that community. Sprawl is destroying the fabric of America and I know that it needs to change. But then when I think of my dream life, I think of living sustainably off the land. I want to live off the grid with a big enough garden and other resources (a pond?) to provide for all of life's essentials. I am also a realist, so I want my sustainable farm to be close enough to a city that I could haul my goods to a nearby city in a trailer pulled by my bike. If I needed to have a job, I would be able to ride my bike to it. This is the definition of the sprawl that I am battling to prevent. Does it make it OK for me to want to sprawl because I want to ride a bike and sell produce to the city, but it's wrong for my neighbor because he wants to drive a car and have a big lawn? I don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't feel right. Ideally, cities would all be relatively small and compact, yet surrounded by small farms providing local food to all the members of the city. That's just not how things are.
I think that being unsure may even be worse than being wrong. I try to live according to my conscience, and I know I make mistakes. Sure I'm ashamed of those, but even worse is not knowing the path I should take because of the imperfect world in which we live.
The other day I was doing something in the driveway and a neighbor from down the street approached me. We really don't know this particular neighbor all that well, so as he approached I was sort of excited to talk with him. Well he came to tell me that my chestnut trees were dying because I wasn't watering them. Then he left. As far as conversations go and getting to know neighbors, it was an utter disappointment. In fact, it sort of made me mad.
This is the point where I want to defend myself and say that I wasn't wrong... but I don't know that would be totally truthful. We have three chestnut trees in our yard that have always turned brown (and quite sickly looking) well before fall arrives (like June). I was of the impression that this was due to a tree disease, but I could be wrong. It could also be due to a tree disease that could be virtually eliminated by adequate water. In the end, I am pretty sure that watering the trees more regularly (or at least a couple of times) could have helped the trees.
So I was wrong, but I had some reasoning behind it. Unfortunately it is reasoning that I'm not completely sure about. For starters, the chestnut trees are horse chestnut trees, so the nuts are poisonous. What good is a poisonous nut? Then when the nuts fall, they fall in a spiky shell that stays in our yard leaving it quite inhospitable. As my wife and I talk about fixing up our house, we talk frequently about the yard. We are currently working on killing weeds so we can put in a front lawn. While I don't especially want to waste water on a front lawn, it will make the house look better, and the odds of us moving within a few years is pretty high. So I'm going against what I truly believe in order to improve resale value. I'm a sell-out and I hate it when I do that. If I were to really want to have grass somewhere, it would be in the back yard where my boys would be more likely to play in it. We haven't started that process because of the spiky things that make the back yard extremely painful to walk in. Since there is no grass in the back yard, we certainly haven't been watering it. And we haven't been going out of our way to water the trees (whose roots are under the "lawn" in the back yard) because they are the problem with the back yard. So the trees are dying.
Here's another issue that I have. Trees are essential for consuming carbon dioxide and cleaning pollution out of the air. I am all for trees and not depleting forests in order to maintain the air quality in our environment. I am also aware that imported trees often consume far more water than their native counterparts, which contributes to the drought conditions we are experiencing and plummeting water tables. So what is worse, wasting water to keep the trees healthy, or letting the trees die and wasting big carbon dioxide consumers that are needed in the area? Frankly, I think that I should be conserving the water and that people should drive less and use less electricity so that we didn't have the air pollution problems, but that's not our current situation, is it?
Earlier this week, my wife asked about my ultimate life, where we would be and what we would be doing. I told her I didn't know... and I still don't. Here's the thing. I am studying how the built environment influences transportation habits and health of a community and the members of that community. Sprawl is destroying the fabric of America and I know that it needs to change. But then when I think of my dream life, I think of living sustainably off the land. I want to live off the grid with a big enough garden and other resources (a pond?) to provide for all of life's essentials. I am also a realist, so I want my sustainable farm to be close enough to a city that I could haul my goods to a nearby city in a trailer pulled by my bike. If I needed to have a job, I would be able to ride my bike to it. This is the definition of the sprawl that I am battling to prevent. Does it make it OK for me to want to sprawl because I want to ride a bike and sell produce to the city, but it's wrong for my neighbor because he wants to drive a car and have a big lawn? I don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't feel right. Ideally, cities would all be relatively small and compact, yet surrounded by small farms providing local food to all the members of the city. That's just not how things are.
I think that being unsure may even be worse than being wrong. I try to live according to my conscience, and I know I make mistakes. Sure I'm ashamed of those, but even worse is not knowing the path I should take because of the imperfect world in which we live.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Utah Miners---Distance II
I previously posted on distance, and I wanted to continue in that light. The original idea was that as things become further from your direct association, we care less about the consequences. I feel that is being used by businesses to make money because they know that we really don't care enough if the consequences, no matter how devastating, are sufficiently distanced from us.
I am sad today because I have been involved in the killing of 9 innocent, hard working men. I'm pretty sure it has received national press, but this morning mine officials announced that the 6 miners who were trapped in a cave-in may never be recovered. Additionally, there were 3 miners killed in a collapse during the rescue efforts. I pray for them, I sincerely hope that they find the missing miners alive, I also recognize that I contributed to the mine collapse and their probable deaths.
You see, I live in Utah (although I feel that responsibility stretches far beyond the state and national borders) and I use electricity. 95% of the electricity I use is generated from the burning of coal. If I used less electricity and thereby decreased the overwhelming demand for coal, those miners wouldn't have had to be mining under dangerous conditions. If I didn't demand that my electric bill be lower, that mine could have spent more money on safety precautions that could have saved the miners.
Can I trace the electricity in my home back to the coal that those miners were mining, or even to that mine? No, there's no way I could do that, so it's distanced from me. Therefore, I'm not responsible, right? I am absolutely responsible. I'm not the only one, but as a consumer of electricity and as a part of society that demands inexpensive power, I am responsible for the demand for electricity and the demand that it be inexpensive (promoting less safe mining practices).
I know people (as in the 4 that read this blog) are thinking that you can't live your life like this, dwelling on every distant consequence of your actions. That is my point exactly, we have to live our lives conscious of the distant effects. Our actions have consequences, often devastating consequences. Frequently it is the actions of many that have devastating consequences, but that is not a license to also participate in the actions.
I don't drive a car frequently because I know of the devastating consequences to the health and fabric of our society. Does the fact that I (1 person) don't drive a car have an impact on the world? No. I know very well that my effort is not nearly sufficient to make any global changes. But if I drove my car I would have to live with the fact that I (yes, me personally) caused the health and societal problems associated with automobiles. Am I being a little hard on myself? Maybe, but if we continue to distance our personal choices from the effects, it is going to continue to have devastating consequences.
When I get in a car, I think of the exhaust and the diseases it causes. When I drive, I personally contribute to the cardiovascular disease being suffered. When I leave the lights on in a room I am not in, I am personally contributing to the poor working conditions of miners around the world. When I flush the toilet I am taking from the limited reserve of fresh water on this planet and adding it to pools of human excrement so that others have less to drink. We all carry a heavy burden. This life isn't just about our pursuit of happiness, it is about enabling others to also have happiness. That is a heavy burden, but one worth supporting.
I am sad today because I have been involved in the killing of 9 innocent, hard working men. I'm pretty sure it has received national press, but this morning mine officials announced that the 6 miners who were trapped in a cave-in may never be recovered. Additionally, there were 3 miners killed in a collapse during the rescue efforts. I pray for them, I sincerely hope that they find the missing miners alive, I also recognize that I contributed to the mine collapse and their probable deaths.
You see, I live in Utah (although I feel that responsibility stretches far beyond the state and national borders) and I use electricity. 95% of the electricity I use is generated from the burning of coal. If I used less electricity and thereby decreased the overwhelming demand for coal, those miners wouldn't have had to be mining under dangerous conditions. If I didn't demand that my electric bill be lower, that mine could have spent more money on safety precautions that could have saved the miners.
Can I trace the electricity in my home back to the coal that those miners were mining, or even to that mine? No, there's no way I could do that, so it's distanced from me. Therefore, I'm not responsible, right? I am absolutely responsible. I'm not the only one, but as a consumer of electricity and as a part of society that demands inexpensive power, I am responsible for the demand for electricity and the demand that it be inexpensive (promoting less safe mining practices).
I know people (as in the 4 that read this blog) are thinking that you can't live your life like this, dwelling on every distant consequence of your actions. That is my point exactly, we have to live our lives conscious of the distant effects. Our actions have consequences, often devastating consequences. Frequently it is the actions of many that have devastating consequences, but that is not a license to also participate in the actions.
I don't drive a car frequently because I know of the devastating consequences to the health and fabric of our society. Does the fact that I (1 person) don't drive a car have an impact on the world? No. I know very well that my effort is not nearly sufficient to make any global changes. But if I drove my car I would have to live with the fact that I (yes, me personally) caused the health and societal problems associated with automobiles. Am I being a little hard on myself? Maybe, but if we continue to distance our personal choices from the effects, it is going to continue to have devastating consequences.
When I get in a car, I think of the exhaust and the diseases it causes. When I drive, I personally contribute to the cardiovascular disease being suffered. When I leave the lights on in a room I am not in, I am personally contributing to the poor working conditions of miners around the world. When I flush the toilet I am taking from the limited reserve of fresh water on this planet and adding it to pools of human excrement so that others have less to drink. We all carry a heavy burden. This life isn't just about our pursuit of happiness, it is about enabling others to also have happiness. That is a heavy burden, but one worth supporting.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Fruits and Vegetables
An easy question...
Do you think local organic fruits and vegetables are better for you than imported or pesticide covered fruits and vegetebles. I'll give you a hint, organic and local is better for you due to nutrient content, and better for the environment because of low petroleum use in transport.
Difficult questions...
When you are looking at fruits and vegetables do you pass over those with blemishes or that have been slightly eaten by insects?
If you think that organic local is better, why do you demand a product that can only be produced with chemicals?
Do you think local organic fruits and vegetables are better for you than imported or pesticide covered fruits and vegetebles. I'll give you a hint, organic and local is better for you due to nutrient content, and better for the environment because of low petroleum use in transport.
Difficult questions...
When you are looking at fruits and vegetables do you pass over those with blemishes or that have been slightly eaten by insects?
If you think that organic local is better, why do you demand a product that can only be produced with chemicals?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Difficult questions
I like hard questions. Yesterday, after I finished taking a shower (I shower at school in the big community shower along with a bunch of other guys), an older guy approached me and asked if I was there for the diving competition. I said no, because I wasn't. He then asked if I was a swimmer. Again I responded no, because I'm not. He said, "Oh" and walked off. A few moments later I realized that he had noticed my shaved legs in the shower and that was the reason he asked the questions. Not a big deal, I bet people wonder about my shaved legs all the time. They're especially obvious when I'm showering because I only shave to mid thigh so I have thick dark hair down half my thigh and then shaved legs to my ankles.
Today, while I was showering, the same gentleman stopped by and asked why I shaved my legs. I love it! This guy had the guts to ask. Not only did he have the guts to ask, but he had the guts to ask while I was naked in the shower. While it was a little awkward, I explained that I shaved for cycling (although at this point I shave more because I like to) and how it helps in healing wounds from crashing, etc.
I can imagine how hard it was to ask that question, but he did it anyway because he wanted to know. The answer was easy and we were both edified. Other questions are not as easy to answer, but still need to be posed. For example, do hybrid cars actually save money or green house gas emissions? Of course they do they get better gas mileage...But they also cost more and expel a lot more green-house gasses in production. I have heard that greenhouse gasses emitted in the production of hybrids far outweighs the savings you will receive in the life of the car. I don't have any data to back that up, but it is a hard question worth asking.
The other day I visited a new housing development in the area that is supposed to be a "green" community. The city layout was wonderful with sidewalks and bike trails everywhere and multi-use zoning so that commerce could be amongst the housing. The design was really pretty good. The area was being developed by a local mining company. Did they get relaxed EPA standards in their mining practices in exchange for this "green" community? Is the "green" community just a marketing scheme to make people feel better while it really doesn't make a difference? If it was done for marketing, and it does make a difference, does it matter that the intents were wrong? Why don't they allow solar panels in this "green" community?
I like hard questions. We need to be thinking in that direction. Everyone has heard the saying that there is no such thing as a stupid question. I disagree completely. But, if you ask a stupid question someone will tell you the answer and then you will know. If you don't ask the stupid question, you will be stupid forever. Take the risk and ask the hard questions. Maybe we can learn something from that.
Today, while I was showering, the same gentleman stopped by and asked why I shaved my legs. I love it! This guy had the guts to ask. Not only did he have the guts to ask, but he had the guts to ask while I was naked in the shower. While it was a little awkward, I explained that I shaved for cycling (although at this point I shave more because I like to) and how it helps in healing wounds from crashing, etc.
I can imagine how hard it was to ask that question, but he did it anyway because he wanted to know. The answer was easy and we were both edified. Other questions are not as easy to answer, but still need to be posed. For example, do hybrid cars actually save money or green house gas emissions? Of course they do they get better gas mileage...But they also cost more and expel a lot more green-house gasses in production. I have heard that greenhouse gasses emitted in the production of hybrids far outweighs the savings you will receive in the life of the car. I don't have any data to back that up, but it is a hard question worth asking.
The other day I visited a new housing development in the area that is supposed to be a "green" community. The city layout was wonderful with sidewalks and bike trails everywhere and multi-use zoning so that commerce could be amongst the housing. The design was really pretty good. The area was being developed by a local mining company. Did they get relaxed EPA standards in their mining practices in exchange for this "green" community? Is the "green" community just a marketing scheme to make people feel better while it really doesn't make a difference? If it was done for marketing, and it does make a difference, does it matter that the intents were wrong? Why don't they allow solar panels in this "green" community?
I like hard questions. We need to be thinking in that direction. Everyone has heard the saying that there is no such thing as a stupid question. I disagree completely. But, if you ask a stupid question someone will tell you the answer and then you will know. If you don't ask the stupid question, you will be stupid forever. Take the risk and ask the hard questions. Maybe we can learn something from that.
Friday, June 8, 2007
My field of study
I know that people have visited this site for my insight on nutrition. I'm currently working on my doctoral degree in Exercise Science with an emphasis in Health Promotion. Upon starting my program I wanted to study the influence of nutrition on health. I changed my mind. Now I'm leaning toward how the built environment influences physical activity and health.
The thing is that people don't have a clue what it means when I tell them that I want to investigate the relationship between the built environment and physical activity. I will explain. The built environment is the stuff that we build, both material and non-material. Architects have studied how the built environment affects physical activity based on where they put elevators and stairs in a building. If a person can't find the stairs, they won't use them. If the stairs are the most prominent feature as you enter the building, people are more likely to use them. Really it's simple, but they have conducted quite a bit of research on how building design influences behavior.
I'm not interested in architecture. I want to know how city design and zoning influences physical activity. Old cities built with a grid street network and zoning that allowed businesses on the street side with apartments or other high density housing above the businesses tend to have a greater proportion of residents that walk to the places they need to go. Sprawling neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs that don't go anywhere that are distinctly separated from places where you could buy the goods that you need tend to have more people who drive. Sprawling areas also tend to have more obesity, and diseases associated with a sedentary lifestyle.
I went to New Orleans a couple weeks ago for a conference. All of the sessions that I attended at the conference were about the built environment. New Orleans is actually a wonderful example of a "walkable community" because the streets are easy to navigate, the stores are attractive (except those that are obscene) and right next to the sidewalk. Notice in the picture all of the cars... Actually they close many of the streets in the French District to cars because they get in the way!
Now think of the neighborhood that you live in, or the neighborhood that they are about to put in. Does it look like this?
While I can see where all of the cars live, and how they get around, where do the people live and how do they get around? People have a hard enough time getting out to exercise without building barriers to prevent exercise into neighborhoods.
I realize that it's a cartoon, but I really like this cartoon in a sad, too close to reality sort of way.
I know someone who recently visited China. He expected to see bikes everywhere, because that is what you think of when you think of China. That wasn't the case. This friend said that as many people as could were buying cars so that they could be "industrialized". like the Americans. At the same time, Americans are trying to deal with an overabundance of automobiles by looking at the example of third world countries. OK, that was far too optimistic. Americans as a whole don't seem to see a problem, but a few who are looking into the future see major problems with the way things are. Take the cartoon for example, about half of the stores are gas stations... There's a reason for that. We put oil into our cars, we put oil into our streets, we put oil based pesticides onto 99.5% of the corn that we are producing to reduce our reliance on oil. This isn't going to work.
Interestingly, countries where the average person makes more money than in the US, they make 33% of their trips by bike. They have made bicycles a valid form of transportation and it the people generally like it. It is more inconvenient in those cities to drive, and that encourages cycling or walking. Although I haven't looked for the stats, I would bet that they are healthier than Americans too. I wonder if they are happier? Having seen some stats on American happiness, it wouldn't surprise me.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Sans TP
In our attempts to live lightly off the land we have made another big change. I want to preface this by saying that it was my wife’s idea. She is the one that made the suggestion. So since we were out of toilet paper my wife suggested that we do without. Imagine the trees that could be saved by not flushing the paper down the toilet.
I have heard of others going without toilet paper, it’s really not a new thing, we’re just copying others. Frankly I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Sure you get the shock affect when you say that you don’t have toilet paper, but I’m really enjoying this new system and I don’t think it’s weird or gross.
I should also note that I am a toilet paper connoisseur. I grew up camping and I loved finding new things to use as toilet paper. For example, there are some big, soft leaved plants in the Pacific Northwest that put Charmin to shame. Pine cones on the other hand were a bad idea. In fact I don’t know why I ever thought that would even be a good enough idea to try. Snow was really one of my favorite TP substitutes. It’s cold, refreshing, slightly abrasive and cleansing. The only problem is that it melts. You have to start with a lot of snow because it melts quickly and you could end up quite vulnerable. Oh, and it's cold. Besides that, if your snow is too powdery, you're doomed and if the snow is too icy, you are also doomed.
So the alternative to toilet paper is a wash cloth that you get a little damp. It’s cool (unless the water has warmed up), refreshing, and it cleans well. Sure you have to do the laundry, but it’s no different than the cloth diapers we wash (maybe I should note that my wife generally does the laundry). The water makes it cleansing and it works great.
Does it make a difference? On the one hand, it’s not a lot of TP that we’re saving, but at the same time we are one family that doesn’t use any. It’s the little things that make a difference.
I have heard of others going without toilet paper, it’s really not a new thing, we’re just copying others. Frankly I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Sure you get the shock affect when you say that you don’t have toilet paper, but I’m really enjoying this new system and I don’t think it’s weird or gross.
I should also note that I am a toilet paper connoisseur. I grew up camping and I loved finding new things to use as toilet paper. For example, there are some big, soft leaved plants in the Pacific Northwest that put Charmin to shame. Pine cones on the other hand were a bad idea. In fact I don’t know why I ever thought that would even be a good enough idea to try. Snow was really one of my favorite TP substitutes. It’s cold, refreshing, slightly abrasive and cleansing. The only problem is that it melts. You have to start with a lot of snow because it melts quickly and you could end up quite vulnerable. Oh, and it's cold. Besides that, if your snow is too powdery, you're doomed and if the snow is too icy, you are also doomed.
So the alternative to toilet paper is a wash cloth that you get a little damp. It’s cool (unless the water has warmed up), refreshing, and it cleans well. Sure you have to do the laundry, but it’s no different than the cloth diapers we wash (maybe I should note that my wife generally does the laundry). The water makes it cleansing and it works great.
Does it make a difference? On the one hand, it’s not a lot of TP that we’re saving, but at the same time we are one family that doesn’t use any. It’s the little things that make a difference.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Speechless
I'm pretty verbose. It takes a lot to leave me speechless. I went to the library yesterday to get some books on how traffic and zoning effect the environment and health. The girl behind the counter commented that she liked my shirt (it is a home made iron-on that says, "what high gas prices" and has a picture of a gas pump and a bicycle). I said thanks. When the girl was done scanning and stamping the books she asked if I wanted a bag. I responded that it would be sort of silly to get a bag to check out a bunch of books on how to protect the environment. She said, "It's OK, the bags are plastic. It's not like they're paper and we had to cut down a tree for it." I don't know what my facial expression said, but there was a lot going through my mind. I was perplexed and completely unable to formulate a sentence, so I left... speechless.
Trees are renewable, plastic is a petroleum product and therefore not renewable. Paper biodegrades, plastic doesn't. Plastic grocery bags have recently been outlawed in San Francisco because of their environmental impact. Do people really think that plastic is a good thing? How do you respond to a question like that?
Trees are renewable, plastic is a petroleum product and therefore not renewable. Paper biodegrades, plastic doesn't. Plastic grocery bags have recently been outlawed in San Francisco because of their environmental impact. Do people really think that plastic is a good thing? How do you respond to a question like that?
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Adding insult to injury
This happened a week or two ago now, but it's not something I was ready to share yet. I don't especially mind getting hurt, but there is something about a person insulting everything that you believe in and stand for that hurts far worse than physical pain. I want to share it.
I am also going to make some analogies to other aspects of life. My intent is not to offend or upset anyone, but I want people to know my feelings.
The last couple of weeks have been rough. I've been leaving the house at about 6 each morning and there have been many evenings I don't get home until well after 9 or 10 (11 on occasion). I was riding home one night and it was nearly 10. Of course it was dark, but I had my bright clothes on and my obnoxious flashing lights so I was seen. Actually I think I'm better seen at night with my blinkies than I am during the day with my bright colored clothes.
I was riding the same route I take every day and a big dually diesel pickup pulled up next to me. He saw me, he even moved a little into the next lane to avoid hitting me. Then he got up along side me, slowed down and nice and slowly pushed me off the side of the road with his diesel behemoth. It wasn't a big deal, the ride got a little bumpy over in the gravel and pot holes, but there was no harm done. Then he slowed a little more so that I was really close (and so that he could could accelerate more). He accelerated. When you accelerate in a behemoth diesel, it lets out a huge cloud of black smoke. It filled my face and lungs. His attempt to spray gravel at me was pretty weak, but the exhaust in my face and his (I'm assuming it was a guy) intentions really hurt.
As soon as I could breath again I gave chase to the pickup. I can often catch cars in the city when they have to stop at stoplights and such. We were on a little country road 3-4 miles to the next stoplight. I didn't catch him to get his plate number. I wonder if that is "assault with a deadly weapon"? It should be. He certainly assaulted me. And a vehicle is certainly a deadly weapon, although getting hit would cause death more quickly, exposure to ambient air pollution (mostly caused by cars) is also closely related to death.
The rest of the ride home I was mad and depressed. What had I done to him? Nothing, except there are many cyclists on the road that don't follow the rules and make drivers mad. He may have been retaliating for that (in which case the "cycling world" may have deserved it). But I personally had done nothing to this motorist. I was doing the exact thing he was doing, trying to get from point A to point B by a means that is faster than walking. Additionally I was trying to get exercise and save the planet from pollution by taking my bike rather than another form of transportation. I have dedicated my life to that goal. I am pursuing a doctoral degree in exercise science and focusing my research on city planning that will help people be more active and less polluting. Exercise and a clean environment are a central part of who I am trying to be. This driver violated everything that I stand for in a very big way. Although there was no physical injury, I have a hard time recalling times I have hurt worse than that night.
The ride home from there seemed to take forever. I thought a lot about that driver. Although his actions were intentional and aimed directly at me personally, there are how many people on the streets every day contributing the same deadly gases and particulate matter to the air I breath? Are they not also taking a direct stand against everything I stand for?
Here comes the analogy. It may seem like a big step, but it was one of the first things I thought of upon arriving at home. The feeling that I had of being completely violated by a person taking intentional steps against things that are a central part of who I am were quite similar to the feelings that I have every year at Christmas and other occasions throughout the year. I am trying to make the smallest impact as possible on the earth. I am trying to teach my children the value of nature and relationships and people rather than stuff. That is a difficult in a world where advertisements are nearly impossible to avoid.
This is hard to say because it is contrary to the beliefs of many of my family members and friends who are very important in my life, and whose generosity I appreciate immensely, but I have to say it so that they can better know who I am. Every Christmas I feel like I just got my face filled with diesel smoke. I stand for simplicity, yet we get packages from all over the country filled with stuff that we have successfully kept out of our home the rest of the year. We love the thought, we appreciate the generosity, we recognize it is "just" tradition, but it goes against those principles that we cherish most in our lives. It should be known that we don't have anything against gifts (although it wouldn't be the end of the world not to get gifts). It is "stuff" that we have a problem with. Plants for our home or garden, donations in our name to charitable organizations, or toys that the boys could go give to those in need would be gifts that really meant something to us.
I think that part of the problem is that we have two kids that are the only grand kids and great-grand kids for all but one set of great-grandparents. Around New Years, my wife and I contemplated sending a letter to all relatives saying that we were going to do a gift free year as a way of showing our kids that life isn't about material gifts. We didn't, in large part because our relatives are distant and gifts are ways that our kids can remember them and we think that's important. One of the big things that I struggle with is the fact that I don't get to buy my kids gifts. The Mugwump is at a point where I can see that he should have a certain toy that I enjoyed growing up. I know that he would enjoy it and it would be less than $10 for me to get it for him. It would be a meaningful gift given to fill a known void that would provide a means for us to play together. I won't buy it, for the same reason I have restrained from buying him a gift the last four years. He gets enough "stuff" from everyone else and he doesn't need any more. Besides that I know that we don't have anywhere to put it. I wish I could have that opportunity.
Besides my religion and my family, today I have written about those things that matter most to me in my life. I hope that nobody took offense. I would also be interested to know what others who try to live simply do to combat this problem.
I am also going to make some analogies to other aspects of life. My intent is not to offend or upset anyone, but I want people to know my feelings.
The last couple of weeks have been rough. I've been leaving the house at about 6 each morning and there have been many evenings I don't get home until well after 9 or 10 (11 on occasion). I was riding home one night and it was nearly 10. Of course it was dark, but I had my bright clothes on and my obnoxious flashing lights so I was seen. Actually I think I'm better seen at night with my blinkies than I am during the day with my bright colored clothes.
I was riding the same route I take every day and a big dually diesel pickup pulled up next to me. He saw me, he even moved a little into the next lane to avoid hitting me. Then he got up along side me, slowed down and nice and slowly pushed me off the side of the road with his diesel behemoth. It wasn't a big deal, the ride got a little bumpy over in the gravel and pot holes, but there was no harm done. Then he slowed a little more so that I was really close (and so that he could could accelerate more). He accelerated. When you accelerate in a behemoth diesel, it lets out a huge cloud of black smoke. It filled my face and lungs. His attempt to spray gravel at me was pretty weak, but the exhaust in my face and his (I'm assuming it was a guy) intentions really hurt.
As soon as I could breath again I gave chase to the pickup. I can often catch cars in the city when they have to stop at stoplights and such. We were on a little country road 3-4 miles to the next stoplight. I didn't catch him to get his plate number. I wonder if that is "assault with a deadly weapon"? It should be. He certainly assaulted me. And a vehicle is certainly a deadly weapon, although getting hit would cause death more quickly, exposure to ambient air pollution (mostly caused by cars) is also closely related to death.
The rest of the ride home I was mad and depressed. What had I done to him? Nothing, except there are many cyclists on the road that don't follow the rules and make drivers mad. He may have been retaliating for that (in which case the "cycling world" may have deserved it). But I personally had done nothing to this motorist. I was doing the exact thing he was doing, trying to get from point A to point B by a means that is faster than walking. Additionally I was trying to get exercise and save the planet from pollution by taking my bike rather than another form of transportation. I have dedicated my life to that goal. I am pursuing a doctoral degree in exercise science and focusing my research on city planning that will help people be more active and less polluting. Exercise and a clean environment are a central part of who I am trying to be. This driver violated everything that I stand for in a very big way. Although there was no physical injury, I have a hard time recalling times I have hurt worse than that night.
The ride home from there seemed to take forever. I thought a lot about that driver. Although his actions were intentional and aimed directly at me personally, there are how many people on the streets every day contributing the same deadly gases and particulate matter to the air I breath? Are they not also taking a direct stand against everything I stand for?
Here comes the analogy. It may seem like a big step, but it was one of the first things I thought of upon arriving at home. The feeling that I had of being completely violated by a person taking intentional steps against things that are a central part of who I am were quite similar to the feelings that I have every year at Christmas and other occasions throughout the year. I am trying to make the smallest impact as possible on the earth. I am trying to teach my children the value of nature and relationships and people rather than stuff. That is a difficult in a world where advertisements are nearly impossible to avoid.
This is hard to say because it is contrary to the beliefs of many of my family members and friends who are very important in my life, and whose generosity I appreciate immensely, but I have to say it so that they can better know who I am. Every Christmas I feel like I just got my face filled with diesel smoke. I stand for simplicity, yet we get packages from all over the country filled with stuff that we have successfully kept out of our home the rest of the year. We love the thought, we appreciate the generosity, we recognize it is "just" tradition, but it goes against those principles that we cherish most in our lives. It should be known that we don't have anything against gifts (although it wouldn't be the end of the world not to get gifts). It is "stuff" that we have a problem with. Plants for our home or garden, donations in our name to charitable organizations, or toys that the boys could go give to those in need would be gifts that really meant something to us.
I think that part of the problem is that we have two kids that are the only grand kids and great-grand kids for all but one set of great-grandparents. Around New Years, my wife and I contemplated sending a letter to all relatives saying that we were going to do a gift free year as a way of showing our kids that life isn't about material gifts. We didn't, in large part because our relatives are distant and gifts are ways that our kids can remember them and we think that's important. One of the big things that I struggle with is the fact that I don't get to buy my kids gifts. The Mugwump is at a point where I can see that he should have a certain toy that I enjoyed growing up. I know that he would enjoy it and it would be less than $10 for me to get it for him. It would be a meaningful gift given to fill a known void that would provide a means for us to play together. I won't buy it, for the same reason I have restrained from buying him a gift the last four years. He gets enough "stuff" from everyone else and he doesn't need any more. Besides that I know that we don't have anywhere to put it. I wish I could have that opportunity.
Besides my religion and my family, today I have written about those things that matter most to me in my life. I hope that nobody took offense. I would also be interested to know what others who try to live simply do to combat this problem.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Environmental ACTION
In my post on the problems with the world, one of the things that I mentioned was the people didn't do what they said. This lack of integrity is causing all sorts of problems. In a recent study 55% of those surveyed said they wished they walked more (I can't believe that this number is that low). When asked about a long-term solution for the traffic problem, 31% of people said we should develop communities, 35% of people said we should improve public transportation, and 25% of people said that we should build more roads. If people really want to walk more, develop communities or improve public transportation it is going to take a lot more than just saying that they want to. It may be a stretch to call this a lack of integrity, but if you want something you have to SHOW that you want it. If you wish you walked more, get out and walk. If you think we should develop community (frankly I don't know what that means, but in the study it was clumped with those who did NOT think that more roads was the solution to traffic problems), then you should take action on that. If you think that we need to improve public transportation, maybe you should start using it as often as possible so that the interest is known and you are financially supporting public transportation.
People don't do what they say. Here are a couple of examples...
Al Gore won some big award for his movie on improving the environment. He testified before congress about global warming and the need for immediate action. Al Gore's house is 10,000 square feet (is that really enough for him and his wife?). His electric bill and gas bill are both independently more than I make each month. But, he says, he lives a carbon neutral life because he gives someone a bunch of money to offset his carbon emissions. Bologna. If we want to make a difference in global warming or anything else, at least those who want to make a difference will have to make some sacrifices in order to see a difference.
On the other hand, George Bush has been one of the worst presidents for the environment. His contributions as president include starting a war centered around oil. Yet, George Bush's house in Texas is only (only?) 4,000 square feet and uses some of the greenest forms of energy production. He has a heating system that uses deep holes in the earth (where the earth is a constant temperature in the upper 60s) to keep his home warm without electricity. He uses solar power for much of his energy needs and he has a gray water reclamation system to conserve water in addition to a system that collects water running off from the roof of his house. I have not agreed with many of Bush's policies, but his home is actually a model to be followed. Does he know something that we don't?
If you think the world is headed drastically in the wrong direction, it is going to take drastic changes to correct the course. If your health is in really bad shape, it is going to take really big changes to correct it. Moderation is nice and all and it makes people feel good because they can continue doing what they have always done and expect everything to change, but the world won't change until you do and the world will only change to the extent that you change.
People don't do what they say. Here are a couple of examples...
Al Gore won some big award for his movie on improving the environment. He testified before congress about global warming and the need for immediate action. Al Gore's house is 10,000 square feet (is that really enough for him and his wife?). His electric bill and gas bill are both independently more than I make each month. But, he says, he lives a carbon neutral life because he gives someone a bunch of money to offset his carbon emissions. Bologna. If we want to make a difference in global warming or anything else, at least those who want to make a difference will have to make some sacrifices in order to see a difference.
On the other hand, George Bush has been one of the worst presidents for the environment. His contributions as president include starting a war centered around oil. Yet, George Bush's house in Texas is only (only?) 4,000 square feet and uses some of the greenest forms of energy production. He has a heating system that uses deep holes in the earth (where the earth is a constant temperature in the upper 60s) to keep his home warm without electricity. He uses solar power for much of his energy needs and he has a gray water reclamation system to conserve water in addition to a system that collects water running off from the roof of his house. I have not agreed with many of Bush's policies, but his home is actually a model to be followed. Does he know something that we don't?
If you think the world is headed drastically in the wrong direction, it is going to take drastic changes to correct the course. If your health is in really bad shape, it is going to take really big changes to correct it. Moderation is nice and all and it makes people feel good because they can continue doing what they have always done and expect everything to change, but the world won't change until you do and the world will only change to the extent that you change.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Global warming
I keep hearing talk about "global warming". I want to make a clarification. In the field of environmental health they use the term "global climate change", but the media thinks that "global warming" sounds scarier, so that is what we talk about. I think this is an important distinction because people hanging out in Northern Minnesota today where it was -30F are not likely to be convinced on this "global warming" thing. And many may be hoping for global warming so that their eyeballs don't freeze when they leave the house.
Is the term "global warming" accurate? Yes, but it is based on overall averages of the entire globe and is not necessarily reflected locally. In fact, warming of climates near the equator and therefore ocean waters will change normal ocean currents resulting in colder than normal temperatures in some parts of the world. England, for example normally has a current of relatively warm water running by it year around which keeps the climate moderate. If that current changes (which is currently taking place) England will get colder due to "global warming". So just for the sake of understanding, let's call it "global climate change" since that is what it is.
Is the term "global warming" accurate? Yes, but it is based on overall averages of the entire globe and is not necessarily reflected locally. In fact, warming of climates near the equator and therefore ocean waters will change normal ocean currents resulting in colder than normal temperatures in some parts of the world. England, for example normally has a current of relatively warm water running by it year around which keeps the climate moderate. If that current changes (which is currently taking place) England will get colder due to "global warming". So just for the sake of understanding, let's call it "global climate change" since that is what it is.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Sharing
The answer to all of the world's problems is sharing. I'm trying to teach my kids about sharing and I see parents all of the time trying to teach sharing to kids. It's not working. Sure, sometimes the Mugwump will share a toy with Sixpence when he's not interested in playing with it, but that's not going to save the world. Real sharing is going to save the world. By real sharing I mean making sacrifices of your personal wants and desires in order to serve the good of others or the community as a whole. Some of this sharing principle is forced upon us and we just need to recognize that we are sharing, no matter what and we need to be considerate of others.
I talked about water and air previously. Of course we will always have to have water and air, everyone will. That means that we are going to have to share. Is it really sharing when the people in Africa don't have clean drinking water and I use my clean drinking water to flush the toilet? Is it really sharing when industry pollutes a river to the point that I can no longer swim in it (not to mention drinking it)? Is it sharing to put bike paths on side streets with stop signs every block while cars get thoroughfares that never have to stop? Is it sharing when inversion is so bad in Utah County that I am not supposed to ride my bike because it is now a health hazard?
If the world is to truly prosper we are going to have to share. This may mean having one car per neighborhood. This may mean sharing rides, even if it makes it a little less convenient for yourself. We live in a very selfish, self absorbed society. If we get out and make some sacrifices and share with those around us we can make huge differences in the world. Did you know that the number one predictor of a low crime neighborhood is knowing your neighbor's name? What is your neighbor's name?
In addition to solving many environmental problems, sharing will bring communities together and increase social capital that is essential to a prosperous society.
I talked about water and air previously. Of course we will always have to have water and air, everyone will. That means that we are going to have to share. Is it really sharing when the people in Africa don't have clean drinking water and I use my clean drinking water to flush the toilet? Is it really sharing when industry pollutes a river to the point that I can no longer swim in it (not to mention drinking it)? Is it sharing to put bike paths on side streets with stop signs every block while cars get thoroughfares that never have to stop? Is it sharing when inversion is so bad in Utah County that I am not supposed to ride my bike because it is now a health hazard?
If the world is to truly prosper we are going to have to share. This may mean having one car per neighborhood. This may mean sharing rides, even if it makes it a little less convenient for yourself. We live in a very selfish, self absorbed society. If we get out and make some sacrifices and share with those around us we can make huge differences in the world. Did you know that the number one predictor of a low crime neighborhood is knowing your neighbor's name? What is your neighbor's name?
In addition to solving many environmental problems, sharing will bring communities together and increase social capital that is essential to a prosperous society.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Value
Have you ever heard the saying, "the most important things in life are free"? I think that thought is more important than we think. Lets take an environmental perspective.
First lets define the most important things in life. We can only live a few minutes without air and a few days without water. Food we can do a bit better and maybe make it a week or more. We need shelter and clothing, love and friends, but that's not the direction I want to go.
Industry also has demands. In order to make a product, you have to start with a material. Plastics, metals, cloth, etc, industry pays money for these raw materials so they can make them into products that we will buy. I don't care how simple you try to live, you will inevitably buy something made of a material that has value. We call these sources of value natural resources.
The point I'm getting at is that water and air are among the most abundant resources that we have and because of that they have little monetary value. Because they have little monetary value industry pollutes them since it won't affect their bottom line. Air and water are unique in the fact that we have to share these resources. There may not be a monetary value, but air and water are of infinite value because without them our lives will cease. The most important things in life are free... maybe we need to change that so that people will recognize the value of what they are destroying.
Likewise with the STUFF that we have, the most important and valuable stuff is intangible: my wife, love, freedom, etc.
First lets define the most important things in life. We can only live a few minutes without air and a few days without water. Food we can do a bit better and maybe make it a week or more. We need shelter and clothing, love and friends, but that's not the direction I want to go.
Industry also has demands. In order to make a product, you have to start with a material. Plastics, metals, cloth, etc, industry pays money for these raw materials so they can make them into products that we will buy. I don't care how simple you try to live, you will inevitably buy something made of a material that has value. We call these sources of value natural resources.
The point I'm getting at is that water and air are among the most abundant resources that we have and because of that they have little monetary value. Because they have little monetary value industry pollutes them since it won't affect their bottom line. Air and water are unique in the fact that we have to share these resources. There may not be a monetary value, but air and water are of infinite value because without them our lives will cease. The most important things in life are free... maybe we need to change that so that people will recognize the value of what they are destroying.
Likewise with the STUFF that we have, the most important and valuable stuff is intangible: my wife, love, freedom, etc.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Homeostasis
Don't let the title fool you, this post may be interesting.
I study homeostasis alot as it pertains to the human body. Our bodies run at a certain pH, with certain amounts of stuff in the blood at all times. We can tell alot about a person by what is in their blood, or more accurately, what is in the blood in unusually high or low amounts. Your body goes through considerable efforts to maintain concentrations at certain levels, and if we find that you aren't within those normal ranges, somthing is wrong. Glucose (sugar), for example is well maintained by the body in a fairly tight range. Every time we eat, we add a bunch of glucose to the system and the body is able to take care of it within a couple of hours. However, if we abuse the system and keep giving the body more than it can handle, it has to take drastic measures to maintain blood glucose in "healthy" levels. If the cells have too much fuel, but we keep pumping more fuel into the system, the cells say that they've had enough by resisting the action of insulin. So now the sugar in the blood can't get into cells as easily creating higher blood sugar levels. This is called insulin resistance and is a precursor to type 2 diabetes. Diabetes (from now on when I talk about diabetes, I'm talking about type 2; type 1 is a different ballgame) is a disease caused by over-consumption. It takes considerable overconsumption for an extended period of time before the body is no longer able to maintain blood glucose homeostasis, and a person is diagnosed with diabetes. (Diabetes is reversable with diet and exercise, but it takes a lot of work).
Last night in my readings, I learned that the earth also has mechanisms to maintain homeostasis (this is not my area of expertise, but I'm going to try and tackle it). I read that the earth's exposure to the sun has increased by 30% since the world began... Well that explains gloabal warming. Except it doesn't. As sun exposure on the earth has been increasing, plants have been better able to undergo photosynthesis (the process of using carbon dioxide for energy with oxygen as a byproduct) thereby decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide acting as a greenhouse gas to keep the planet warm. How cool is that? As the temperature rises, plants thrive and decrease the greenhouse effect and as temperatures cool, plants are less able to use carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect to help maintain the homeostasis of the temperature on earth. That was working really well for a long time, until we decided to start pumping extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through industry and automobiles. Oh, and at the same time we decided to cut down forests because we need to make wood products like paper, houses, furniture, etc. Oh and some of the forests got in the way of farmland, so we cut them down too. We have increased CO2 through industry, but decreased the earth's ability to get rid of CO2 by cutting down forests.
Now I'm not going to jump into any research about global warming, because I'm not familiar with it. It looks to me that wether global warming has started or not, the earth is becoming "insulin resistant", except with CO2 instead of glucose. If we continue to abuse the earth, it will eventually be unable to maintain homeostasis and that won't be good.
In the Bible, a rich man asked Jesus what he needed to do to obtain eternal life, and Jesus responded that he needed to leave all that he had and follow Jesus (or something to that effect). Wow, evidently God wasn't kidding when he gave us that scripture. Are the consequences of not giving up comfort to follow Jesus certain death? Spiritually, maybe. Physically, it's sort of looking that way. As obesity and diabetes reach epidemic levels, it appears as if more and more people are killing themselves with excess. As a society we are producing more and more CO2 and decreasing the earth's ability to convert CO2 back to oxygen which, if continued indefinitely, will lead to the end of the world. I'm not trying to say the world will end anytime soon, I have great confidence in the human body's and the earth's ability to take abuse for a long time, as well as a conviction that Jesus will return and make things better. I just find it interesting that God created the earth such that if we are not charitable, if we continue to be greedy seek for "more", and if we continue to overconsume, it will lead to the death of individuals, and eventually the death of the earth.
I study homeostasis alot as it pertains to the human body. Our bodies run at a certain pH, with certain amounts of stuff in the blood at all times. We can tell alot about a person by what is in their blood, or more accurately, what is in the blood in unusually high or low amounts. Your body goes through considerable efforts to maintain concentrations at certain levels, and if we find that you aren't within those normal ranges, somthing is wrong. Glucose (sugar), for example is well maintained by the body in a fairly tight range. Every time we eat, we add a bunch of glucose to the system and the body is able to take care of it within a couple of hours. However, if we abuse the system and keep giving the body more than it can handle, it has to take drastic measures to maintain blood glucose in "healthy" levels. If the cells have too much fuel, but we keep pumping more fuel into the system, the cells say that they've had enough by resisting the action of insulin. So now the sugar in the blood can't get into cells as easily creating higher blood sugar levels. This is called insulin resistance and is a precursor to type 2 diabetes. Diabetes (from now on when I talk about diabetes, I'm talking about type 2; type 1 is a different ballgame) is a disease caused by over-consumption. It takes considerable overconsumption for an extended period of time before the body is no longer able to maintain blood glucose homeostasis, and a person is diagnosed with diabetes. (Diabetes is reversable with diet and exercise, but it takes a lot of work).
Last night in my readings, I learned that the earth also has mechanisms to maintain homeostasis (this is not my area of expertise, but I'm going to try and tackle it). I read that the earth's exposure to the sun has increased by 30% since the world began... Well that explains gloabal warming. Except it doesn't. As sun exposure on the earth has been increasing, plants have been better able to undergo photosynthesis (the process of using carbon dioxide for energy with oxygen as a byproduct) thereby decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide acting as a greenhouse gas to keep the planet warm. How cool is that? As the temperature rises, plants thrive and decrease the greenhouse effect and as temperatures cool, plants are less able to use carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect to help maintain the homeostasis of the temperature on earth. That was working really well for a long time, until we decided to start pumping extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through industry and automobiles. Oh, and at the same time we decided to cut down forests because we need to make wood products like paper, houses, furniture, etc. Oh and some of the forests got in the way of farmland, so we cut them down too. We have increased CO2 through industry, but decreased the earth's ability to get rid of CO2 by cutting down forests.
Now I'm not going to jump into any research about global warming, because I'm not familiar with it. It looks to me that wether global warming has started or not, the earth is becoming "insulin resistant", except with CO2 instead of glucose. If we continue to abuse the earth, it will eventually be unable to maintain homeostasis and that won't be good.
In the Bible, a rich man asked Jesus what he needed to do to obtain eternal life, and Jesus responded that he needed to leave all that he had and follow Jesus (or something to that effect). Wow, evidently God wasn't kidding when he gave us that scripture. Are the consequences of not giving up comfort to follow Jesus certain death? Spiritually, maybe. Physically, it's sort of looking that way. As obesity and diabetes reach epidemic levels, it appears as if more and more people are killing themselves with excess. As a society we are producing more and more CO2 and decreasing the earth's ability to convert CO2 back to oxygen which, if continued indefinitely, will lead to the end of the world. I'm not trying to say the world will end anytime soon, I have great confidence in the human body's and the earth's ability to take abuse for a long time, as well as a conviction that Jesus will return and make things better. I just find it interesting that God created the earth such that if we are not charitable, if we continue to be greedy seek for "more", and if we continue to overconsume, it will lead to the death of individuals, and eventually the death of the earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)