Goodall 1

"There was no fairy godmother waving a magic wand--only his shear determination to make his childish vision into reality."

The story told about Paul Rockich and his restoration of the Oquirrh Mountains show that it is possible to fix what we have destroyed. It will be difficult, but it isn't impossible. Though stories like this are still few and far between. I hope that some day, the human race (specifically, republicans) will realize how important efforts like Paul's are to restore Earth's natural beauty.

"This discussion about healing earth's scars illustrates that, through  combination of human determination, scientific know-how, and the resilience of nature, even badly compromised habitats can be restored..."

About 65 million years ago, on a March day, somewhere in what is now Mexico, a big rock landed on the ground, releasing energy 2 million times greater than the most powerful nuclear bomb. This created a huge cloud of ash, which, within a 24-hour period, killed virtually all megafauna on the planet. If one were to have witnessed this event, it's safe to assume that they would think no life could ever return to this planet. It's irradiated the animals, poisoned the atmosphere, and completely changed the course of history. But, as we know, the world did not lose its ability to harbor life, and after a few million years, megafauna have returned. I don't think that anything we do to this planet will cause a complete irradiation of life, but if we want to still exist, we should probably try to not make the problem any worse.

http://www.radiolab.org/story/dinopocalypse/ Go here. Listen to this. So awesome.

"Without all the other men and women who are working so hard to conserve and protect our plants and their environments, our planet would be a poorer place."

And that's what this class is trying to do, isn't it? Create more environmentalists to fix the problems that we've all had a hand in causing? Let's hope it's as effective as the creators of Colloquium intended.

Carson

"Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has this one species--man--acquired significant power to alter the nature of his world."
 Sometimes I wonder, if there really was a god, which I don't think there is, if god were asleep since the dawn of man, and came to earth, to see all of what we have created, would god be horrified? Would god be ashamed? Proud? Progress is an interesting concept that man has created. We change the natural world for the sake of progress. Progress...toward what? What is the ultimate goal here? Does all progress require deforestation? Does all progress require species irradiation? Does all progress require skyscrapers, satellites, & overpasses? What would god think of a prairie or forrest turned into a highway? Hm.

"The figure is staggering and its implications are not easily grasped--500 new chemicals to which the bodies of men and animals are required somehow to adapt each year, chemicals totally outside the limits of biology experience."

I understand what Carson is saying here, but I don't like the way she uses 'chemicals.' Environmentalists frequently use the 'chemical' in a derogatory manner, when chemicals are literally everything. Every single thing in the known universe is a chemical compound. Some chemicals are man-made, or are only found in certain areas and get introduced into other areas. This may be good or it may be bad. But you can't simply make the claim that "chemical"=bad.

"I do contend that we have put poisonous and biologically patent chemicals indiscriminately into the hands of persons largely or wholly ignorant of their potentials for harm."

Here here. I completely agree with this statement, and contend that we continue to do so, just not as blatantly has we once did. Companies still dump hazardous waste into the environment since it's cheaper than disposing of it properly. Some people do this as well, usually out of ignorance, as opposed to maliciousness. Then again, I'm an environmental engineer, and waste-site remediation is a big part of Environmental Engineering, so if people stopped poisoning the land, air, and water, I'd be out of a job....



All I can think about as I'm doing this is...

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1541306/thumbs/o-WALKING-DEAD-POSTER-570.jpg?6

Do I get points off for the picture being off topic?

Shiva

“throughout the 20th century it was considered that substitutes could be found for resources supplied by biodiversity: renewable source of us of energy-would an animal energy-could be replaced by fossil fuels; manure for growing food could be replaced by the products of fertilizer factories; and medicines could be made from synthetic molecules. But fossil fuels have given us climate change; agrochemicals have threatened species, undermined soil fertility, and human health; and synthetic drugs have had a fatal side effects.”

Wow. There’s so much wrong with this paragraph it’s hard to know where to start.

Climate change is a big problem, yes, but it’s hard to look at the industrial revolution and say that it was such a terrible thing because climate change. Maybe I’ll be swallowing my words when FGCU is 15 ft under water, but until then…
As an environmental engineering student, I have learned that the reason chemical fertilizers (which has given us the ability to feed enough people to lead to 7,000,000,000 of us, you’re welcome) cause so much environmental issues is because of misuse, and overuse. The gun is not dangerous unless in the wrong hands.
And the worst thing of all…fatal side effects from modern medicine? Are you freaking kidding me?? You know what would be worse than the occasional fatality from a synthetic drug? Polio! Smallpox! Cancer! This author is so incredibly ungrateful to what the 20th and 21st century has given her.


“Our ignorance of the ecological functions of diverse forms of life is no excuse for us to push species to extinction, or to manipulate them without concern for the ecological impact.”
I am very torn with this statement. On one hand, I am an environmentalist, and am horrified at the way man has irradiated species for the “greater good” and for the “cost of doing business.” However, as an engineer, I've seen first hand what genetic engineering can do. Are there risks? Yes. But science should never ever be limited because of potential risks. Algenol Biofuels is using genetically engineered algae to create gasoline and other types of oil through sustainable practices. Do I feel bad about the algae? No.

“The imperative to destroy diversity in order to increase productivity comes from my one-dimensional monocultural paradigm which fails to take the diverse functions of diverse species into account.”
This is something that I CAN support. And it brings to mind the millions of acres of corn that are grown in this country. Corn has ended up in virtually every processed food stuff that you can find in your grocery store. Yet the ignorance of the masses prevents anyone but select outsiders (more commonly known as “damn liberals”) to question and fight against this mono-culturing.

http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/11.16.12-Corn-Field.jpg

Overall, I give this segment of the book a C+. It's interesting, gives a lot of good facts, but is overall very one-sided and bias (like the rest of the book). And I'm an environmentalist, so that should tell you something.

Diamond

"How could a society that was once so mighty end up collapsing?"

The author alludes to the idea the the modern society that we find ourselves in can also suffer from grand collapses that has plagued mankind for tens of thousands of years.  Man is notorious for its strong reactive approaches, compared to its meager preventative approaches. We have been on the brink of utter collapse in the past. In the start of the 1900s, there was a beginning of a food crisis, where there wasn't enough Nitrogen in the soils to feed the ever increasing population. But in around 1911, Fritz Haber discovered a way to create ammonia from nitrogen in the air, and badabing, badaboom, you get 7+ billion humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Haber

We were almost all wiped out during the cold war between the US and Russia. The 2 nations had created enough nuclear warheads to irradiate life on the planet about a dozen times over. Fortunately our intellect prevented our destruction.

"Perhaps we can still learn from the past, but only if we think carefully about its lessons."

We need to take this statement to heart in order to succeed as a planet. This is the information age, where the average person who has access to a computer connected to the internet can learn more in a week than the most intelligent people knew back 1,000 years ago. [citation needed]

I believe that our future is bright. I do not think that our modern society will suffer a cataclysmic collapse that will lead to an eradication of the population. Even with the threat of climate change, I think that our prestigious intellect will allow us to weasel our way out of inadvertent doom. 

"Many people fear that ecocide has now come to overshadow nuclear war and emerging diseases as a threat to global civilization."

http://mmazroui.kau.edu.sa/ImageGallery.aspx?Site_ID=0003580&LNG=EN&Gal=450

Planet-wide human annihilation through planetary phenomena (excluding a large meteor or comet hitting the earth) is, I believe, very improbable. Do I think that humans are causing global climate change? Yes. Do I think we can do something about it? Yes. But  even in the worst-case-scenario, I think humans will progress. The dark ages are the most recent historical example of a decrease in average human intelligence and life-expectancy.[citation needed] But in a world of decreased religious upbringings, and a population capable of witnessing world events as they occur from anywhere, another dark age seems improbable. And if the the worst happens, and widespread famine occurs, and there are droughts and floods plaguing the world, someone will engineer a way out of it, just like Fritz Haber did. 

So I'm not scared of the future. I'm stoked!