DRINK NOW, PAY LATER

 

DRINK NOW, PAY LATER podcast by Karen Hopkins

“Drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”  - The words of Faber’s Dean Wormer

The fact that drinking can make you have bad judgment has been pounded into teens since we were in fourth grade. By now, when we are in high school, we know that drinking heavily leaves you sleepy, stupid, and prone to making bad decisions. But, after the dreaded hangover, that is, life goes back to normal, right? A study that was in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and podcasted on Scientific American by Karen Hopkins, shows that ‘drinking in adolescence can set you up for a whole lifetime of bad decisions.’ Of course, it’s a question that whether people who drink alcohol when they’re young are also going to be the same people who make bad decisions when they’re older; however, that question has remained unanswered. In a study done on alcohol intake in rats, the results showed that their ability to make good decisions was impaired when they were adults, too. This was showed when the rats had the tendency to ‘chase after rewards with associated his risk rather than taking a sure thing.’ So, the lesson here is, don’t drink, because it may bring unalterable changes to your behavior and thinking, which could lead to disastrous consequences from now to when you’re older, too. Here’s the thing: There’s probably no stopping teens from drinking. Although I have no experience with this personally, I do not think they will want to stop. I don’t think teens who drink will really care about the effects- maybe because they’re not the type to care in the first place, or because, sometimes as I’ve seen, we, as teens seem to think we are invincible, and the problems and consequences that come with the things we do will somehow skip over us. We believe we are immune to it all- car crashes, cancer, and the unnecessary risks we take that will someday bring us to our knees. I personally got a lot out of this podcast because it now gives me reason not to drink, even when I am pressured to and when I know some of my classmates do. And if I am ever in a situation where there is a chance for me to tell people this information, I will. I do not know if my words will be taken into account. I doubt whoever I am talking to will immediately throw down their drink and promise sobriety. But hopefully, hopefully my words will stay in their mind until they do have the power to turn away from the drinks. That is all I can hope for. And please know that I am not against adults over 21 drinking in moderation… I am only worried for my classmates and others who have or may acquire a habit of drinking and the things that may befall them, consequences for their actions, unbeknownst to them when they took their first sip.    

Selective Breeding vs. Genetic Modification

Would you want to eat a chicken that was so fat, it couldn’t walk? If you were a vegetarian, would you want to eat a pear that had some of the DNA of a fish? These are issues we’re facing today and will be facing in the future. Like it or not, this is the direction science is going.

In Britain, boiler chickens have been bred o gain 3kg in 6 weeks, whereas before selective breeding, they weighed only 1 kg in that same time. The chickens are so fat they cannot walk, and a lot of them die from heart failure. To really get the picture, imagine a 6-year-old weighing 286 pounds- for any child and animal to be that fat for that small of a body would be ‘hideous and cruel.’

Meanwhile, genetic modification is coming into the light as the newest, easiest way to pant cops without having to spray them- the pesticide is in the DNA of the crop. Likewise, with animals, traits from other plants and animals can be put into the KNA of an animal so they take on whatever trait was implanted in their DNA- some real-life examples of this have resulted in featherless chickens and glow-in-the-dark rabbits. Yes, glowing rabbits. Look it up if you don’t believe me!

The difference between selective breeding and genetic modification is that selective breeding has been done for thousands of years and requires no science labs or anything it is the ‘more natural’ way, if you will, of getting what you want out of the animal or plant. Genetic modification, however, is a technology that alters the genetic makeup of an organism, actually combining genes from different organisms. With selective breeding, this is only possible cow to cow, pea plant to pea plant, but with GM, you can put a DNA trait of a jellyfish into a rabbit. Crazy, huh?

The benefits of selective breeding is that you get the animal or crop you want with the right trait you want, too, without having to pay or get lab equipment. For example, you can get a chicken with more meat on it.

The benefits of genetic modification is that you can get any trait you want, (the abilit to glow in the dark, strength, the ability to grow and mature quickly, etc.) from any organism you want, and you can put that ability into any organism you want.

Concerns of selective breeding include the animal's wellfare- for example, there are broiler chickens who have so much wight on thier bodies because they have been selectively bred to gain a lot of weight that they are unable to walk or die of heart failure.

There are many concerns for genetic modification, as well: Potential human health impacts include unintended transfers of trangsgenes through cross-pollination, and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity. In addition, many people would have problems with its ethics- for example, what if you are a vegetarian and you have some DNA of a pig in your broccoli? Are you still eating 100% vegetable? Other people would consider genetic modification as 'tampering with nature'. This is mainly an ethics problem. I''m sure many others would object, as it could be argued it is a "violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values, tampering with nature by mixing genes among species and stress for the animal." Not to mention it could 'increase dependence on industrial nations by developing countriesdomination of world food production by a few companies,' (globalization,) and many potential, unknwon environmental impacts. This doesn't happen in selective breeding.

I think genetic modification should be more of a concern, because this is actually putting off one organism and putting it in a totally different one. All for food and consumerism. In my opinion, food should be food- it should be organic, comletely from natre, and should only be itself. A sunflower, duck, and microbe's DNA has no business being in a carrot.

I think Gregor Mendel, 91822-1884, the man who first discovered heredity using pea plants, would be really interested in what we have done with the info. he discovered- bigger, fatter livestock and fruits and vegetables. I think he'd be excited about it and would want to see what other cool things scientists can do using genetic modification. After all, he once crossed peas and mice of different varieties "for the fun of the thing," so I'm getting the feeling he'd be into whatever new modern science genetic modification would provide.

All I have to say is this: Although selective breeding and genetic modification could possibley help world hunger, I am worried about the unseen impacts it could have on the people who eat it and the planet. I think food should be left as food- pure and organic. We needn't harm animals, nor create bigger problems than the problems we are trying to solve with the crops.  

Podcast: Why Ecosystem Services Matter

It seems we have been getting further and futher away from our earth, our ecosystem. One day last winter, I realized that I could go for a full day without going outside. Well, unless you count the 7 steps from the car to the door of my school. But I don't count that. Then I realized that if I can manage that here in the beautiful, small, outdoors-y town of Durango, Colorado, there are probably millions who can manage it in a smoggy, crowded city. We forget about the Earth. We forget about nature. Then a tsunami, hurricane, snow blizzard, tornado, or downpour hits us, and we are once again shaken into remembering how powerful nature is.

F.Y.I.: bold print = me talking
           regular print = the podcast
David Biello, from Scientific American, 60-Second Earth.

"Clean water and air, pollination, fish in the oceans, storm protection, these are just a few of the benefits the natural world provides. And scientists looking to preserve those benefits have a name for them: ecosystem services.
"I happen to hate the phrase ecosystem services..." says Peter Kareiva, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy.  "What we mean by ecosystem services are the products or functions that nature provides which are of great value for people."
Personally, I would have to agree. It makes me think of people just taking advantage of the earth. It reminds me of big-business oil companies that see to have a mindset that says, 'hmm, what else can the planet provide me with? Well, let's see, I could use some more oil....' Rather than saying, 'okay, thanks, Earth, but I'm not going to suck up the rest of your precious resources like a stinking leech. You have done your part, Earth, you've given us all we could ever need. Let me give back to you now. How can I serve you, Earth?' It also reminds me of the Kennedy quote, 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.' We need to take care of our planet, folks. Live sustainably, and not take it all for granted.

"In the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Kareiva and his colleagues published a call this week for renewed efforts to put a dollar figure on the value of nature's services.
"In this world, cost benefit analysis and dollars are how decisions get made…When nature and the benefits that nature are not converted to dollars then it can't be on the table for those discussions and, in a way, nature's not getting credit for what it's doing."
How can you convert that into dollars? That's like telling different people, 'oh, you're worth (blank amount), and you over here are worth five dollars more because of (blah blah blah).' I am skeptical because how are you to judge what is more important in nature than others? How can you? All of nature works together. 'Nature's not getting credit for what it's doing.' I totally agree. Nature is not meant to have a dollar sign with an amount stamped before it, it's not meant to be judged that way, either. Everything is needed, everything in moderation. We need to let nature take care of itself, and we need to stop having to be in control of everything.
That lack of credit often means a lack of concern for the natural world as development decisions get made. But ignoring nature imposes a steep cost of its own. Consider the mysterious ailment killing bees and thus risking the ecosystem "service" of pollination. Or the devastation Hurricane Katrina visited on New Orleans partially because of the disappearance of the storm protection offered by wetlands.
People need to be very concerned about the well-being of our planet. We do call it 'Mother Earth' after all. We need to take care of our mother. Earth is where we live. We can't trash it. We have to think not only of ourselves in this life right now, but of future generations, and of the consequences our actions could have devastating effects long-term.
"Of course, any dollar values on natural services will be wrong because it's extremely hard to accurately account for the value of, say, clean air. But Kareiva and others argue that putting zero value on nature is a much bigger mistake."
I agree with this that 'any dollar values on natural services will be wrong because it's extremely hard to accurately account for the value of, say, clean air.' More than that, I think it's just a wrong thing to do, not just because of how difficult it would be to do that. But I agree that 'putting zero value on nature is a much bigger mistake' than putting a value on it. We need to be very conscientious of the waste we produce, our carbon footprint, and the amount of water we use.

To find your carbon footprint, you can go to: http://myfootprint.org/  If everyone lived like you do, how many Earths would it take for it to be sustainable? I took it and got: 4.25 I don't think it's completely accurate since it's not my own house and car, but I know it's not the best, and I challenge you to beat it.


Below is the original script.
Scientific American. 60-Second Earth.

David Biello reports.

"Clean water and air, pollination, fish in the oceans, storm protection, these are just a few of the benefits the natural world provides. And scientists looking to preserve those benefits have a name for them: ecosystem services.
"I happen to hate the phrase ecosystem services, and my colleagues in business and government don't like it either…but it's what we're stuck with." That's Peter Kareiva, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, "What we mean by ecosystem services are the products or functions that nature provides which are of great value for people."
In the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Kareiva and his colleagues published a call this week for renewed efforts to put a dollar figure on the value of nature's services.
"In this world, cost benefit analysis and dollars are how decisions get made…When nature and the benefits that nature are not converted to dollars then it can't be on the table for those discussions and, in a way, nature's not getting credit for what it's doing."
That lack of credit often means a lack of concern for the natural world as development decisions get made. But ignoring nature imposes a steep cost of its own. Consider the mysterious ailment killing bees and thus risking the ecosystem "service" of pollination. Or the devastation Hurricane Katrina visited on New Orleans partially because of the disappearance of the storm protection offered by wetlands.
Of course, any dollar values on natural services will be wrong because it's extremely hard to accurately account for the value of, say, clean air. But Kareiva and others argue that putting zero value on nature is a much bigger mistake."

(To listen to this report yourself, go to: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=why-ecosystem-services-matter-09-02-05 )

Ecology: A World Without Mosquitos

Probably everyone on the planet wishes mosquitos were dead-gone-zapped, right? Probably because you've been bitten by them all over, right? And you probably think that mosquitos have no real reason to exist on Earth, right? Consider this fact: Mosquitos have been around for 100 million years. What does this tell you? It tells you that if mosquitos had no reason to exist, they would have been extinct millions of years ago.

In this article, Ecology: A World Without Mosquitos,  the author, Janet Fang, explores the effect mosquitos have on our planet and the plants and animals in it, and, of course, on humans. The article advocates for the mosquitos by way of giving information about them: why we need mosquitos, and what could happen if humans were to rid the world of them. However, Fang does not outright say if mosquitos deserve to be condemmed or not- that's for the reader to decide.

The article helped me learn alot. While you are reading this, decide for yourself if you are for or against moquitos:
Facts to Make You Hate Mosquitos: There are about 3,500 different species of mosquitos, and those are only the number of named mosquitos. Malaria infects some 247 million a year, with 1 million deaths from it. Yellow fever, dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis, Rift Valley fever, Chikungunya virus, and West Nile virus are the diseases mosquitos tend to spread.

In Defense of Mosquitos:  While it is true there are 3,500 different species of mosquitos, only a few hundred of them bite or annoy people. Mosquitos are a primary food source for several types of fish, such as the mosquitofish, birds, insects, spiders, slamanders, lizards, and frogs. This means that if mosquitos were to vanish, the food chain would be seriously corrupted, and all animals up and down the food chain, such as birds, would be negatively effected. In additon, mosquitos in the Artic are the reason caribou migrate the way they do. You see, 3-4 weeks after the snow melts and the mosquitos are full-grown, they can become thick and dense clouds. To escape the swarms, the caribou tend to migrate using a path that faces into the wind. If mosquitos were to be extinguished, the migratory paths of the caribou would change, and, because thousands of caribou all walking over the same land can alter the land, plants, and animals, (such as wolves), it could cause serious damage to the ecosystem should the paths change. Lastly, mosquitos feed off of decaying leaves, organic matter, and microorganisms. It is in question whether other organisms would step in to do the job mosquitos originally did.

Well, now you have the knowledge. Should mosquitos be banished from this world for being annoying, disease-carrying pests?

To answer this question myself, I try to think like a mountain, which is to say, long-term. I think that if moquitos were to be wiped out, it would have serious negative impacts on our planet. I'll leave it at that.