Link to Article
This article doesn't surprise me. If there aren't any stronger methods in trying to improve and trying to slow down or stop rising global temperatures, many species of animals and life would die. People often forget that many animals depend on specific climate and temperature. Even people cannot handle temperature difference, but have difficulty seeing the bigger picture and the consequence of actions of humanity as a whole.
As someone who sticks their finger outside and claims climate change is a fake because it was cold outside, it's essential to make people see the big picture, but also see it in a human scale. Due to a lot of people thinking that the rising temperatures are natural part of the Earth's cooling and heating cycle, but people need to know the potential consequences of such a state effecting people, and how we could attempt to prevent from adding to the statistic with our actions. The facts do tell a story, and it's something to listen to, despite doubts.
Especially since it's causing lots of life to die out, and it's not helping in conservation efforts. It's a complicated issue that has no simple answer, as if you take too many steps back, it seems inevitable and unchangeable, while when too close, it seems as rising global temperature doesn't seem actually true. It's an odd situation looking at how people think as well, and honestly I can't really think of a good answer. Ideally, it would be for people to be more aware of the issue, but as people are more leaning to believing the easier answers, it's harder to convince them of the tough gritty truths.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Response #19 Rise of Flat-Earthers Is Result of Failed Educational System
Link to Article
This article discusses Neil deGrasse Tyson, and his input on how the rise of people who believe the Earth is flat is due to a free speech and a failing education system. He believes that people need to be taught how to believe things by looking at evidence and regarding the information. Otherwise, people would run around believing everything, and that is not something that benefits society, as people have become too open minded to the point where they believe anything without ample evidence.
To some people, this stance would be offensive, as it questions their faith about things. But when it comes to faith versus science with actual evidence, facts, and repeatable experiments, it just makes more sense to accept truth rather than live a lie. I don't like being lied to, and when people refuse to tell me things, it forces me to be naive and be dumb and innocent. In a way, I was raised in that matter, and found myself getting hurt because I didn't know how to believe things without actually looking at the facts. It's much easier to teach children when they are younger, but the system right now shows that being doubtful is negative, and that people must be always open minded and accepting of everything.
Despite this kind of thought being harmful to young minds, it is constantly being told to younger people, only to be faced with harsh facts and truths and be kind of traumatized with inevitable. It's something people don't think about. It's a battle between current safety and comfort, versus long term effects and issues. I'd rather take the truth and being taught how to make up our own opinions rather than believe everything that is shot at me.
This article discusses Neil deGrasse Tyson, and his input on how the rise of people who believe the Earth is flat is due to a free speech and a failing education system. He believes that people need to be taught how to believe things by looking at evidence and regarding the information. Otherwise, people would run around believing everything, and that is not something that benefits society, as people have become too open minded to the point where they believe anything without ample evidence.
To some people, this stance would be offensive, as it questions their faith about things. But when it comes to faith versus science with actual evidence, facts, and repeatable experiments, it just makes more sense to accept truth rather than live a lie. I don't like being lied to, and when people refuse to tell me things, it forces me to be naive and be dumb and innocent. In a way, I was raised in that matter, and found myself getting hurt because I didn't know how to believe things without actually looking at the facts. It's much easier to teach children when they are younger, but the system right now shows that being doubtful is negative, and that people must be always open minded and accepting of everything.
Despite this kind of thought being harmful to young minds, it is constantly being told to younger people, only to be faced with harsh facts and truths and be kind of traumatized with inevitable. It's something people don't think about. It's a battle between current safety and comfort, versus long term effects and issues. I'd rather take the truth and being taught how to make up our own opinions rather than believe everything that is shot at me.
Response #18 The Secret Science That Rules Crowds
Link to Article
I'm very well acquainted with the concept of mob mentality, and how quickly lies and slander can spread through an angry crowd, which leads to tossing rational thought out the window. This is rampant in a lot of places, real life and online. It's fascinating and irritating to see a crowd of angry people, and trying to make sense with them. Only to have the angry people calm down, usually on their own, and then finally being able to talk to them. But when with the crowd? Sense is almost impossible to achieve.
This article talks about specifically the danger of death in crowds, which wasn't what I was expecting. In dangerous situations, the people tend to trample other people to death while trying to escape or hurry to safety. Crowds tend to have a single consciousness, and despite seemingly dangerous and lethal, there is an odd rationality to crowds, with certain 'rules' governing them. Officials guarding the crowd however may not know the rules and make things worse, leading to actual deaths. It's a strange situation, but can make sense.
People are trying to figure out the science between crowds, and how to apply these findings to future situations to minimize danger in future events. Sometimes, certain ideas to prevent traffic or crowds don't work, and other solutions are often much more effective. I especially liked the school bell example, which makes a lot of sense why our school had removed the bell after a few years I had attended there. People are strange, and there are still a lot more to learn about human behavior.
I'm very well acquainted with the concept of mob mentality, and how quickly lies and slander can spread through an angry crowd, which leads to tossing rational thought out the window. This is rampant in a lot of places, real life and online. It's fascinating and irritating to see a crowd of angry people, and trying to make sense with them. Only to have the angry people calm down, usually on their own, and then finally being able to talk to them. But when with the crowd? Sense is almost impossible to achieve.
This article talks about specifically the danger of death in crowds, which wasn't what I was expecting. In dangerous situations, the people tend to trample other people to death while trying to escape or hurry to safety. Crowds tend to have a single consciousness, and despite seemingly dangerous and lethal, there is an odd rationality to crowds, with certain 'rules' governing them. Officials guarding the crowd however may not know the rules and make things worse, leading to actual deaths. It's a strange situation, but can make sense.
People are trying to figure out the science between crowds, and how to apply these findings to future situations to minimize danger in future events. Sometimes, certain ideas to prevent traffic or crowds don't work, and other solutions are often much more effective. I especially liked the school bell example, which makes a lot of sense why our school had removed the bell after a few years I had attended there. People are strange, and there are still a lot more to learn about human behavior.
Response #17 Ocean plastic could triple in decade
Link to Article
I once seen photos and videos of the amount of plastic that is in oceans, and it horrified me. It shocked me to see the sheer amount of trash and plastic floating around and I've always wondered how it got there. It seemed like people were being lazy when tossing trash not in trashcans, and it seems despite the education about recycling and helping saving oceans, the change isn't occurring fast enough.
I've always wondered, how would this situation be helped? It seemed a lot of the trash was floating on the surface, and I've wondered if there was a way to lightly skim the garbage off the surface of the water. I'm pretty sure there are reasons why this isn't practical or why people don't do it enough, but it seems like people don't think cleaning up the oceans are important enough. It also should be important to tell people to stop throwing trash into the water, because they need to stop. Why would you do that? You are too lazy to walk a few steps to a trash can? Your laziness or the lives of fish and ocean animals that might be negatively effected by it? Sigh.
The visual of oceans of plastic and trash is honestly sad to me. The fact that it would triple in as soon as a decade is even more depressing. There needs to be some sort of change to slow or stop this future, but at this rate it seems extremely unlikely.
I once seen photos and videos of the amount of plastic that is in oceans, and it horrified me. It shocked me to see the sheer amount of trash and plastic floating around and I've always wondered how it got there. It seemed like people were being lazy when tossing trash not in trashcans, and it seems despite the education about recycling and helping saving oceans, the change isn't occurring fast enough.
I've always wondered, how would this situation be helped? It seemed a lot of the trash was floating on the surface, and I've wondered if there was a way to lightly skim the garbage off the surface of the water. I'm pretty sure there are reasons why this isn't practical or why people don't do it enough, but it seems like people don't think cleaning up the oceans are important enough. It also should be important to tell people to stop throwing trash into the water, because they need to stop. Why would you do that? You are too lazy to walk a few steps to a trash can? Your laziness or the lives of fish and ocean animals that might be negatively effected by it? Sigh.
The visual of oceans of plastic and trash is honestly sad to me. The fact that it would triple in as soon as a decade is even more depressing. There needs to be some sort of change to slow or stop this future, but at this rate it seems extremely unlikely.
Response #16 What Makes Some Hair Curly? Not Quite What Scientists Thought
Link to Article
I have said previously on many occasions on how fascinating genetic discoveries in animals lead to more understanding to our own species. There are many things that we don't understand exactly about genetics, and I've been always curious on how curly hair is formed, what exactly goes on in a cell to make the hair curl inwards. It's often difficult to study parts of the human body, and the example in the article is that human hair cells tend to wind around each other in tangles, making them hard to study.
I never had stopped to think on what causes hair to become curly, naturally of course. The article discusses theories, and the scientists discovered after studying the sheep hairs meticulously that certain cells were longer than other cells, and that the difference between these cells were most likely the reason for curliness. This doesn't exactly answer our questions about human hairs, but they believe studying hairs of other animals will help us try to understand our own hair and cellular structure. We have much to learn from animals, and a lot of discoveries were traced back to studying traits or behavior in animals. It shows how much more we have to learn about ourselves, and our world.
I have said previously on many occasions on how fascinating genetic discoveries in animals lead to more understanding to our own species. There are many things that we don't understand exactly about genetics, and I've been always curious on how curly hair is formed, what exactly goes on in a cell to make the hair curl inwards. It's often difficult to study parts of the human body, and the example in the article is that human hair cells tend to wind around each other in tangles, making them hard to study.
I never had stopped to think on what causes hair to become curly, naturally of course. The article discusses theories, and the scientists discovered after studying the sheep hairs meticulously that certain cells were longer than other cells, and that the difference between these cells were most likely the reason for curliness. This doesn't exactly answer our questions about human hairs, but they believe studying hairs of other animals will help us try to understand our own hair and cellular structure. We have much to learn from animals, and a lot of discoveries were traced back to studying traits or behavior in animals. It shows how much more we have to learn about ourselves, and our world.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Response #15 Insects Flew Before Anything Else Did. So How Did They Get Their Wings?
Link to Article
Discoveries about insects always tend to fascinate me, as they look so alien from a human standpoint, yet hold so many mysteries on how they have survived for so long and achieved so much. Flight is one thing, and the title of the article immediately caught me. Flight? Interesting. How did flight come about anyway?
Scientists have theorized about wings evolving from gliding membrane, and I think that is very interesting. Wings that help movement yes, but were hidden from view. Most people do indeed think about butterflies or dragonflies when they think of insects having wings, and this discovery/theory I think could expand our understanding of flight in general. Perhaps it could lead to more compact methods of air travel? Regardless, discoveries and research pertaining to insects always excite me because it shows that even bugs that are supposedly icky have a purpose to us humans.
Discoveries about insects always tend to fascinate me, as they look so alien from a human standpoint, yet hold so many mysteries on how they have survived for so long and achieved so much. Flight is one thing, and the title of the article immediately caught me. Flight? Interesting. How did flight come about anyway?
Scientists have theorized about wings evolving from gliding membrane, and I think that is very interesting. Wings that help movement yes, but were hidden from view. Most people do indeed think about butterflies or dragonflies when they think of insects having wings, and this discovery/theory I think could expand our understanding of flight in general. Perhaps it could lead to more compact methods of air travel? Regardless, discoveries and research pertaining to insects always excite me because it shows that even bugs that are supposedly icky have a purpose to us humans.
Monday, March 26, 2018
Response #14 American Adults Just Keep Getting Fatter
Link to Article
This article starts out with statistics that show Americans are getting more obese. The article also states it seems that public health officials' attempt at educating people about the dangers of eating unhealthily aren't working. Food companies are advocating for more laws that would allow them to get away with not putting labels on foods that are high in sugar or fat, which is a danger.
I have said in my previous presentation that I would like to see GMOs be properly labeled, and thus allow the consumer to make a decision on whether they want to eat it or not. But if foods aren't labeled, then there is no way to see if you are making a good decision or not since you don't have all the information. These recent laws that are pushing against public health officials and their attempt to educate people are from the Trump Administration, which I've seen in my previous articles a lot of issues in laws and regulations coming from. It seems that, indeed, the government is to blame yet again.
Pulling back on species conservation, pulling back on ocean conservation, and pulling back on informing the public of what is in their food. Everything here is done in favor of large corporations and profit, which means we the people don't have to worry about sacrifices, the government is already sacrificing people and species left and right for more money in their pockets. It is definitely a grim prospect, as it is surely not seen in an improving economy, but rather a more happy higher class. Shameful.
This article starts out with statistics that show Americans are getting more obese. The article also states it seems that public health officials' attempt at educating people about the dangers of eating unhealthily aren't working. Food companies are advocating for more laws that would allow them to get away with not putting labels on foods that are high in sugar or fat, which is a danger.
I have said in my previous presentation that I would like to see GMOs be properly labeled, and thus allow the consumer to make a decision on whether they want to eat it or not. But if foods aren't labeled, then there is no way to see if you are making a good decision or not since you don't have all the information. These recent laws that are pushing against public health officials and their attempt to educate people are from the Trump Administration, which I've seen in my previous articles a lot of issues in laws and regulations coming from. It seems that, indeed, the government is to blame yet again.
Pulling back on species conservation, pulling back on ocean conservation, and pulling back on informing the public of what is in their food. Everything here is done in favor of large corporations and profit, which means we the people don't have to worry about sacrifices, the government is already sacrificing people and species left and right for more money in their pockets. It is definitely a grim prospect, as it is surely not seen in an improving economy, but rather a more happy higher class. Shameful.
Response #13 Bigger Is Not Better for Ocean Conservation
Link to Response
Large marine protected areas are not helping. The article states that most diversity in species lies near coastal areas, which are not protected. Just because larger areas out in the ocean are being protected aren't helping the conservation of biodiversity, as the species that should be protected do not reside in the deep water, rather are near coastal areas. Many people do not realize this, and simply believe that larger lines over the ocean mean its better.
It's a complicated issue as many countries do not understand how to properly conserve the species that lie in the oceans. Especially with many countries (specifically the United States), rolling back on environmental protections, people need to be aware of more effective methods of protecting ocean biodiversity. The whole situation consists of several bridges that need to be overcome, but at the current state people would rather enjoy the view from land rather crossing all those bridges to get a closer look.
Between ignorance and possibly intentional ineffective measures, oceans contain a high percentage of our Earth's biodiversity, and fishing is still allowed in the coastal waters that should be more protected. One quote sums up my thoughts for this topic, which is "We need more science-based conservation, not convenient conservation". It is completely true, and nothing will actually matter until effective measures are taken.
Large marine protected areas are not helping. The article states that most diversity in species lies near coastal areas, which are not protected. Just because larger areas out in the ocean are being protected aren't helping the conservation of biodiversity, as the species that should be protected do not reside in the deep water, rather are near coastal areas. Many people do not realize this, and simply believe that larger lines over the ocean mean its better.
It's a complicated issue as many countries do not understand how to properly conserve the species that lie in the oceans. Especially with many countries (specifically the United States), rolling back on environmental protections, people need to be aware of more effective methods of protecting ocean biodiversity. The whole situation consists of several bridges that need to be overcome, but at the current state people would rather enjoy the view from land rather crossing all those bridges to get a closer look.
Between ignorance and possibly intentional ineffective measures, oceans contain a high percentage of our Earth's biodiversity, and fishing is still allowed in the coastal waters that should be more protected. One quote sums up my thoughts for this topic, which is "We need more science-based conservation, not convenient conservation". It is completely true, and nothing will actually matter until effective measures are taken.
Response #12 Sudan, the Last Male Northern White Rhino, Dies in Kenya
Link to Article
The last male Northern White Rhino has died, after battling sickness for weeks. When I heard the news, it didn't effect me in an immense way, but something in my head sort of bothered me. Perhaps it was the fact we talked about him a few days prior the news went live somehow shook me. He left his daughter and granddaughter, the only two white northern rhinos left.
A quote I found somewhat profound was by Thomas Hildebrandt, head of reproduction management at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo, “This is a creature that didn’t fail in evolution, it’s in this situation because of us.” It raises questions, as do we need to focus so much time and effort (not to mention money) on saving one species? It is a question that rose from some of my previous responses to articles, and I still have not came to a conclusion. People, by an extension, should atone for their reckless behavior of killing off species. It is a shame people have a high sense of preservation when it comes to members of their own species, when people are clearly taking too many resources too quickly. The standard of life has increased dramatically, while the population continues to grow as people are determined to cling on life.
Incidents like these remind me that actions have dire consequences, and people need to wake up and pay attention, and perhaps try to repent for their crimes and such.
The last male Northern White Rhino has died, after battling sickness for weeks. When I heard the news, it didn't effect me in an immense way, but something in my head sort of bothered me. Perhaps it was the fact we talked about him a few days prior the news went live somehow shook me. He left his daughter and granddaughter, the only two white northern rhinos left.
A quote I found somewhat profound was by Thomas Hildebrandt, head of reproduction management at the Leibniz Institute for Zoo, “This is a creature that didn’t fail in evolution, it’s in this situation because of us.” It raises questions, as do we need to focus so much time and effort (not to mention money) on saving one species? It is a question that rose from some of my previous responses to articles, and I still have not came to a conclusion. People, by an extension, should atone for their reckless behavior of killing off species. It is a shame people have a high sense of preservation when it comes to members of their own species, when people are clearly taking too many resources too quickly. The standard of life has increased dramatically, while the population continues to grow as people are determined to cling on life.
Incidents like these remind me that actions have dire consequences, and people need to wake up and pay attention, and perhaps try to repent for their crimes and such.
Response #11 As Harvey Raged, Their Homes Were Swamped on Purpose. Six Months Later, They Face a Terrible Choice.
Link to Article
This article speaks about how the residents of Cinco Ranch weren't informed that their town was built part of a reservoir system that would flood first before the rest of Houston. The article interviews a few people in a part of Cinco Ranch called Canyon Gate, who say that "many of the places we call home should never have been built in the first place".
The concept of sacrifice very apparent in this article. It is tragic, yes, but many would say that few were sacrificed for the greater good. Many would agree to this scenario, if it weren't for the people who suffered from the incident and their voices. Many were forced to make a difficult choice, to move away or stay in a place that would most definitely be flooded again. It is difficult to look at this sacrifice when you consider these people as human beings with lives, hopes and dreams of their own. It's like that train track problem, do you sacrifice one person to save multiple others? Or is that still bad because one person died?
Sacrifice is a theme I've been seeing in science a lot too, with previous articles debating if people should focus on more "impactful" endangered species to save rather than trying to save every single one. It however, becomes more conflicted when the topic changes to humans, when not much has changed except we grow fond for other people differently than how we grow fond of animals. My opinion on the whole thing? The sad truth is, people shouldn't hold higher ground than other species, but that's not going to be a popular opinion. However, in this specific scenario, the government should informed these people of the dangers that would happen when living in Cinco Ranch. It was a preventable tragedy, and that makes it depressing.
This article speaks about how the residents of Cinco Ranch weren't informed that their town was built part of a reservoir system that would flood first before the rest of Houston. The article interviews a few people in a part of Cinco Ranch called Canyon Gate, who say that "many of the places we call home should never have been built in the first place".
The concept of sacrifice very apparent in this article. It is tragic, yes, but many would say that few were sacrificed for the greater good. Many would agree to this scenario, if it weren't for the people who suffered from the incident and their voices. Many were forced to make a difficult choice, to move away or stay in a place that would most definitely be flooded again. It is difficult to look at this sacrifice when you consider these people as human beings with lives, hopes and dreams of their own. It's like that train track problem, do you sacrifice one person to save multiple others? Or is that still bad because one person died?
Sacrifice is a theme I've been seeing in science a lot too, with previous articles debating if people should focus on more "impactful" endangered species to save rather than trying to save every single one. It however, becomes more conflicted when the topic changes to humans, when not much has changed except we grow fond for other people differently than how we grow fond of animals. My opinion on the whole thing? The sad truth is, people shouldn't hold higher ground than other species, but that's not going to be a popular opinion. However, in this specific scenario, the government should informed these people of the dangers that would happen when living in Cinco Ranch. It was a preventable tragedy, and that makes it depressing.
Friday, March 23, 2018
Response #10 The Price French Bulldogs Pay for Being So Cute
Link to Article
Our recent discussion on dog breeding reminded me when I was reading this article. Dog breeding is a touchy subject, specially due to the fact that humans are altering the genome of a breed just to make it more appealing to the masses. If a cuter face came with blindness or other disabilities, then people would still take the cuter face because those genetic problems aren't heavily apparent until much later. I feel if a dog has to be birthed through c-section and cannot give natural birth, there should be a lot of questions asked here.
People need to be made aware of the health concerns of heavily inbred dogs, and take cautionary measures to prevent the ongoing trend of cuteness over healthy. Despite how tragic the even in which a dog died due to it being stored in the overhead bin of an aircraft, perhaps it would start a discussion on forms of animal cruelty, forced inbreeding included. In order for a species (or in this case, breed) to stay healthy, there must be variety in the gene pool. Even in species that are bred to be kept as solely human pets, they still should be healthy. people simply need to be more considerate of the needs of other species over their desires.
Our recent discussion on dog breeding reminded me when I was reading this article. Dog breeding is a touchy subject, specially due to the fact that humans are altering the genome of a breed just to make it more appealing to the masses. If a cuter face came with blindness or other disabilities, then people would still take the cuter face because those genetic problems aren't heavily apparent until much later. I feel if a dog has to be birthed through c-section and cannot give natural birth, there should be a lot of questions asked here.
People need to be made aware of the health concerns of heavily inbred dogs, and take cautionary measures to prevent the ongoing trend of cuteness over healthy. Despite how tragic the even in which a dog died due to it being stored in the overhead bin of an aircraft, perhaps it would start a discussion on forms of animal cruelty, forced inbreeding included. In order for a species (or in this case, breed) to stay healthy, there must be variety in the gene pool. Even in species that are bred to be kept as solely human pets, they still should be healthy. people simply need to be more considerate of the needs of other species over their desires.
Monday, March 19, 2018
Response #9 Should Some Species Be Allowed to Die Out?
Link to Article
This article's title immediately stuck out to me. That's why I clicked on it, as it seems like an extreme 'controversial' stance on the guilted mind of a human who want's to save every possible species that they have contributed to the failing of. Many of the methods in conserving endangered species hinder other parts of the economy, as valuable resources are spent in attempts to revive a dying population in captivity, while others cease land development to preserve wild habitats. Many have disliked this method of approaching things, and many circumstances have changed (Including the new president) to allow a potential overhaul of the Endangered Species Act.
In reality, some species may have to die. It would be the survival of the fittest, in regards to natural selection. However, people feel guilt as most endangered species and those on the verge of extinction are due to human activity. It however, leads to a discussion in which the value (whether it be ecological or economical) of a species is pitted against that of another species. I agree with the notion that trying to save every specie is impractical, impossible, and unrealistic. Many have to keep in mind that natural extinction occurs, and is not always tied to human activity. Due to humanity's hero complex however, they want to save every dying species, and help prevent any potential extinction.
Some say people should put the effort into saving the most genetically diverse species, to assist in surviving the genetic diversity. Others say that doing so may cause unintentional consequences. Many people in the public are only aware of endangered species that are either large and noticeable, or cute and adorable and thus "must be protected!". To pit lives against each other is no morally sound task, nor is it one people notice they are doing in the first place. I found it interesting how the researchers spent more time killing the invasive rats who preyed upon the birds, rather than sighting and recording birds. It's not the approach people would be aware of, but it's work. If anything, it raises more moral questions when dealing with an invasive species. Regardless though, I don't have an answer to this dilemma, as even researchers don't know what to do.
This article's title immediately stuck out to me. That's why I clicked on it, as it seems like an extreme 'controversial' stance on the guilted mind of a human who want's to save every possible species that they have contributed to the failing of. Many of the methods in conserving endangered species hinder other parts of the economy, as valuable resources are spent in attempts to revive a dying population in captivity, while others cease land development to preserve wild habitats. Many have disliked this method of approaching things, and many circumstances have changed (Including the new president) to allow a potential overhaul of the Endangered Species Act.
In reality, some species may have to die. It would be the survival of the fittest, in regards to natural selection. However, people feel guilt as most endangered species and those on the verge of extinction are due to human activity. It however, leads to a discussion in which the value (whether it be ecological or economical) of a species is pitted against that of another species. I agree with the notion that trying to save every specie is impractical, impossible, and unrealistic. Many have to keep in mind that natural extinction occurs, and is not always tied to human activity. Due to humanity's hero complex however, they want to save every dying species, and help prevent any potential extinction.
Some say people should put the effort into saving the most genetically diverse species, to assist in surviving the genetic diversity. Others say that doing so may cause unintentional consequences. Many people in the public are only aware of endangered species that are either large and noticeable, or cute and adorable and thus "must be protected!". To pit lives against each other is no morally sound task, nor is it one people notice they are doing in the first place. I found it interesting how the researchers spent more time killing the invasive rats who preyed upon the birds, rather than sighting and recording birds. It's not the approach people would be aware of, but it's work. If anything, it raises more moral questions when dealing with an invasive species. Regardless though, I don't have an answer to this dilemma, as even researchers don't know what to do.
Monday, March 12, 2018
Response #8 A Case for Wild Flamingos Calling Florida Their Home
Link to Article
An article that is related directly to my home (for now), Florida. The article discusses how despite how popularized and linked the image of a flamingo is with the Sunshine State, it is difficult to see them in the wild. Conchy the flamingo showed up at a navel air station and was rescued and placed in a zoo until he would get better. When it came to release him, the state asked if he even belonged in Florida. It seemed funny, asking if a flamingo belongs in Florida, but it raises a lot of questions. If flamingos are declared by the state to be a native species, they can be protected, and thus would be better for them. It just is a question of where they are coming from.
Despite the issues, I feel like flamingos should be considered natives of Florida as there used to be populations before they were hunted down or vanished. Now that they are returning, and some people still may hunt them, it should help them to have them as an endangered species, to help protect the returning population, even if it is for only a temporary period. Just because an American lives in Europe for a few years shouldn't mean they get their citizenship revoked, just have to renew their passport, and a similar thing here. I agree with people voting to protect these birds, because the biodiversity of Florida, as stated in the article, is either invasive species or endangered species. Variety and diversity could aid a lot in the revitalization of dwindling bird populations in the state.
An article that is related directly to my home (for now), Florida. The article discusses how despite how popularized and linked the image of a flamingo is with the Sunshine State, it is difficult to see them in the wild. Conchy the flamingo showed up at a navel air station and was rescued and placed in a zoo until he would get better. When it came to release him, the state asked if he even belonged in Florida. It seemed funny, asking if a flamingo belongs in Florida, but it raises a lot of questions. If flamingos are declared by the state to be a native species, they can be protected, and thus would be better for them. It just is a question of where they are coming from.
Despite the issues, I feel like flamingos should be considered natives of Florida as there used to be populations before they were hunted down or vanished. Now that they are returning, and some people still may hunt them, it should help them to have them as an endangered species, to help protect the returning population, even if it is for only a temporary period. Just because an American lives in Europe for a few years shouldn't mean they get their citizenship revoked, just have to renew their passport, and a similar thing here. I agree with people voting to protect these birds, because the biodiversity of Florida, as stated in the article, is either invasive species or endangered species. Variety and diversity could aid a lot in the revitalization of dwindling bird populations in the state.
Response #7 How Cockroaches Crash Into Walls and Keep Going
Link to Article
I've always been fascinated by the durability of certain pests, such as cockroaches. They have endured everything that humanity has thrown at them, and shown intense survivability despite each toxic chemical we try to wipe them out with. To be honest, I have always been fascinated with bugs in general, and have pondered if there could be a way to learn from them, or make them valuable to research so maybe people would (slightly) appreciate them more. As wiping out an entire species because 'ew they are gross' is a bad idea, for the multitude of reasons. This article shows possibilities.
The gif they start the article with, where it shows the cockroach slamming into a wall and then climbing up honestly surprised me when I first saw it. If a human was crawling at that speed and slammed into the wall, I'm fairly sure the concussion that they would get wouldn't let them climb up the walk, neither walk anywhere else. Researchers have found this ability to continue going even after crashing isn't done by the cockroach's brain, but rather it's body doing it instinctively. They have found this information useful in the possibility of engineering smaller and more capable of navigating even the most cluttered or uneven of environments.
The field of robotics have always fascinated me, and I do hope to see advancements mimicking things we see in natural world. And in doing so, perhaps we can learn to appreciate other beings and how they adapt to survival. Truthfully, when I encounter a cockroach in my house, I've always sat down to observe it a bit before releasing it. I just find such creatures fascinating and not entirely worth death and destruction, and certainly not extinction (I however may be in the minority in this one).
I've always been fascinated by the durability of certain pests, such as cockroaches. They have endured everything that humanity has thrown at them, and shown intense survivability despite each toxic chemical we try to wipe them out with. To be honest, I have always been fascinated with bugs in general, and have pondered if there could be a way to learn from them, or make them valuable to research so maybe people would (slightly) appreciate them more. As wiping out an entire species because 'ew they are gross' is a bad idea, for the multitude of reasons. This article shows possibilities.
The gif they start the article with, where it shows the cockroach slamming into a wall and then climbing up honestly surprised me when I first saw it. If a human was crawling at that speed and slammed into the wall, I'm fairly sure the concussion that they would get wouldn't let them climb up the walk, neither walk anywhere else. Researchers have found this ability to continue going even after crashing isn't done by the cockroach's brain, but rather it's body doing it instinctively. They have found this information useful in the possibility of engineering smaller and more capable of navigating even the most cluttered or uneven of environments.
The field of robotics have always fascinated me, and I do hope to see advancements mimicking things we see in natural world. And in doing so, perhaps we can learn to appreciate other beings and how they adapt to survival. Truthfully, when I encounter a cockroach in my house, I've always sat down to observe it a bit before releasing it. I just find such creatures fascinating and not entirely worth death and destruction, and certainly not extinction (I however may be in the minority in this one).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)