features a screened drain for worm tea capture and side ventilation for worm health.
features a screened drain for worm tea capture and side ventilation for worm health.
Should we alter or preserve habitats for the benefit of one species as prescribed by experts?
Not understanding a relationship of flora and fauna in an ecosystem should not be ignored in the basis for exerting man’s will to terraform a habitat for the benefit of a political action group or a single species they claim to represent. When confronted with an action that has the capability to affect the environment on enormous scale my first reaction is to stop trying to apply a one fix solution to everything. Gather knowledge and weigh benefits against possible consequences instead of ignoring opposition to personal bias. Experts, especially in academic circles are constantly proving that the previous expert was totally wrong. Let’s not get into the infamous Dr’s. Leakey on the origin of man contradicting what all of Western Society held and then re-held to be fact as given to us by experts, and tend more in the direction of Dr. Carl Sagan’s more practical “Baloney Test” for science.
By all means listen to your experts. Then apply a little logic and listen to your opponents experts. Now you will have the most difficult challenge of listening to your conscience to decide if either of them is correct or if they have an agenda.
What should frighten you about this process of rational thought is that you may have to admit that man does not know everything about how this planet behaves. We can observe history and repeat the mistakes or let go of pride and act responsibly to others before one’s own self interests. (here is where I usually get called a communist)
Some of the current environmental discourses attributed to people are discussed briefly here.
Prometheans, identified as people who trust the “experts” to fix things, Economic rationalism which holds that private ownership will be the answer to protecting the environment, and Ecological modernization which uses adaptability to address environmental problems. “Nature knows” best advocates would be served better if they actually let nature work or at least stop trying to do things better than nature at the advice of experts.
Prometheans, identified as people who trust the “experts” to fix things, can be considered correct on a large scale only if they are willing to let “Mother Nature” or “God” be considered the expert. Just about the time whaling was becoming a dying industry because we hunted them to the brink of extinction, petroleum deposits were harnessed to provide a substitute fuel for lamps and a tool for generating a new power source called electricity. An environmental problem of catastrophic proportions was solved by the experts. Along that thinking, when all species of plant life become the property of corporations to decide what will be the prescribed biosphere for nations to conform to a global economic plan, we can rest easy that nothing can go wrong, go wrong, go wrong… because the laws will protect us. Should all the breathing air become corrupt from the atmosphere we could conceivably discover a new way to deliver oxygen to our bodies cells without the use of lung tissue. That reminds me of the old joke about a man climbing onto his porch roof when the flood came and refusing to get in the row-boat that tried to rescue him because God was going to take care of him. He also refused to get into the bigger boat that tried to rescue him when he had to climb on to the house roof as the water rose. When the helicopter offered to rescue him as he clung to the chimney, he repeated that God would take care of him. After dying at the pearly gates, he asked Peter why God let him down and was told that he was a darned fool because God had sent him two boats and a helicopter that he ignored because he thought he knew better. We cannot just blindly trust that everything will work out alright without learning what might happen. We need to be proactive and take responsibility for our actions. It is far too easy to let experts decide for us so we will have someone to blame if things do not go according to plan.
Economic rationalism holds that private ownership will be the answer to protecting the environment. It is a matter of perception whether engineering and market economics can become our environmental savior experts or just keep complicating and prolonging our downfall. It is thought that pride in ownership and competition to keep up with global economies will be enough incentive to clean up pollution. But can we really rely on the good intentions of corporations to have the welfare of non-shareholders in mind when initiating policy? Economic motivation of this type more often encourages us to pass the buck and export our problems to places that don’t matter to a board of directors. Rationalization is the basis of a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitude after all.
Ecological modernization uses adaptability to address environmental problems. Adapting to what you see as possible threats is common sense but it should be done responsibly. A militaristic approach of kill whatever is different to maintain control certainly protects your interests as long as what you eliminate was truly bad for you. Bringing in design experts to make changes that affect your neighbors can be self serving and detrimental to others. If you manufacture all the plant life that your experts say the world will ever need and society benefits from that, then I suppose you can pat yourself on the back and accept the award for saving the population from hunger. If you destroy the health of entire continents or worse, you may find yourself no longer part of the global economy. But to outlaw the use of alternative plants so your products remain the only ones sold is in my opinion a direct violation of human rights; I don’t care whose constitution you cite. When the planet and its population change, you need to change with them, not against them.
“Nature knows best” may be the single most inappropriately used argument for change ever taken up. Or is it a better argument for things to stay the same? I get confused. Bringing in invasive species to control invasive pests is bad but allowing invasive species to alter an ecosystem is also bad. Putting up a dam to block a river is bad for the environment unless a beaver does it. Dredging a channel through a barrier island is wrong unless a hurricane does it. Starting a lot of little fires to protect the habitat of Scrub Jays keeps the ecosystem stuck in a destructive loop for one species of bird (and a wealthy land owner adjacent to the preserve maybe?), which is to be in a constant state of re-growth and change that would eventually settle into a balanced ecosystem if left alone to progress into the next natural stage of growth. We preserve Scrub Jay habitats because if nature had its way the birds would get displaced by vegetation changes as the forest regenerated itself. We also preserve Scrub Jay habitats because if we let nature have its way people would get displaced by marsh flooding and forest fires as the area goes through first stage and second stage growth cycles. On the other hand, wait just a darned tootin’ minute. According to our “experts” if nature had its way things would change and that’s a bad thing unless nature does it?
I repeat emphatically; not understanding a relationship of flora and fauna in an ecosystem should not be the basis for exerting man’s will to terraform the habitat for the benefit of a political action group or a single species they claim to represent.
Follow this space to read about my take on the Army Corp of Engineer experts altering navigable waterways in an environmentally responsible project.
Reading the Opinion Column in Mondays April 15 edition of The Times Union Jacksonville Florida, I was surprised to see diane dimond (sic) of creators syndicate advocating the removal of automated stop light camera ticketing use in areas that apparently (according to her own testimony) need them the most. She started by admitting that she has broken the law at least three times by running red lights and was unaware of her transgressions until the automated system notified her. As I understand things, that is exactly the reason for installing the systems in the first place. People are developing dangerously poor driving habits while oblivious to the fact that they are endangering the lives of other drivers and pedestrians through their careless disregard for traffic signals.
diane(sic) cites an administration study concluding that red light cameras cause more rear end collisions “as wary drivers suddenly slam on their brakes at intersections.” My dictionary defines wary as -cautious and alert for problems-, not suddenly surprised to find you are operating a moving vehicle too fast to react to a traffic signal changing from green to yellow so that you can slow down safely.
Driving on public highways has always been a dynamic environment requiring a driver to pay attention to all circumstances that may present danger. The privilege of driving usually starts with instruction about approaching a stale green light before you can pass a test proving you have the skills to operate a moving vehicle in public. Red light cameras do not cause the collisions; drivers who were not paying attention and panic cause the collisions. The cameras were placed at those intersections for the express purpose of notifying drivers with poor skills or negligent habits that they are a danger to the rest of the public that shares those roads.
Perhaps shorter yellow light time is what is needed to knock some sense into people that continuously disregard the system of traffic signals. Signals that are needed to allow for a safe flow of traffic should not be circumvented for the convenience of a few drivers that wrongly feel they have a right to disregard my safety. Many times I hear that people do what they know to be wrong because it was not convenient to do the right thing. Selfish is what selfish does if you catch my meaning.
The closing remark of her opinion was “Drivers beware”; in the context of her writing apparently meaning you need to watch out you do not get a ticket for doing the things you normally do all the time. Endangering the lives of school children and other drivers is not something you should be doing all the time. Better to start taking responsibility for your actions and change how you operate a moving vehicle. I say “Drivers be AWARE!”
Calendar of activities can be found here;
Auto License Plate Recognition. The software that can identify a car tag from an ATM camera or the convenience store security camera that watches parking lots for criminal mischief.
This software can read a plate number and compare it to a list of stolen vehicles or check for expired registration or even red flag the owner if there is no insurance currently covering that vehicle. Is it a case of government intrusion or a long overdue chance to catch the law breakers that make righteous citizens pay extra for doing the correct thing.
Yeah, Big Brother is watching you by recording and tracking your use of a “PRIVILEGE” to drive a motorized vehicle on public roads. Nobody was ever given the right to drive. We all signed a license to be afforded the privilege to use roads built mostly by the government with honest tax payer money so that a convenient infrastructure could be enjoyed instead of dirt paths. In order to gain that privilege we must promise to obey laws and uniform traffic codes so that chaos does not prevail on the highways. Enforcement of rules for a society should be the responsibility of all its citizens. Courts and discretion of the police officers is a way to see justice done but all too often those methods are abused by corruption. It is not a perfect society because too many people are trying to get away with breaking the laws.
I say go big brother; protect me and mine.
If you cannot stand to be watched as you commit crimes against me then you have a couple of choices. Stop driving without insurance or valid registration and you won’t get caught. Or start obeying the law. Either choice you make and I will feel safer on the highway. I find it annoying that the most outspoken opponents of government regulations to protect the citizens are people that want to get away with crimes.
A law to make it illegal to drive below the speed limit when most other cars are speeding because you might impede other peoples wishes to commit a crime. Really? Thanks to the legislators in the Florida Senate that bill never got past the first vote but it was on the agenda to become law. Somebody thought it would make their disregard for my safety a lot easier without all the hassle of getting arrested. I for one think we should all try to make it more difficult for people to break the law not legislate corruption. Didn’t we just have eight years of that a while back?
zitiboat ON July – 12:30 am
I thought a similar post several years ago with my name attached would get some respect. None shown so far!
We need at least two Internets!
More really but garage sales and Department Stores seem to know that they are different and account for taxes differently.
The World Wide Web is for surfers to research and explore. YouTube is for fun and .com is for money; bad analogy but this is where I was going… (this is for fighting and this is for fun).
The .COM domain is for business as in dot Commerce.
Countries and organizations can have .gov, .org, or whatever the abbreviation needed to be official and there is always .edu for the really serious.
Hyper Text Transfer Protocols (http://) are extremely simple to separate into WorldWideWeb (www.name/) and HTTPS:// or secure encrypted sites with a domain certificate. Why don’t we use them the way they are intended?
I believe it is because the internet is available to users that have no knowledge of what they are doing. Caveat emptor.
We license drivers to operate motor vehicles and require insurance against damage, but allow teenagers to Cyberbully peers with only the cost of a internet capable device! Social networking is akin to passing notes in class. Everybody gets away with it but if you get caught doing something wrong you have to pretend to be somebody else to keep doing it. Someone else is always responsible for your actions in today’s society that seems to be spreading to (are we allowed to call them third world cultures anymore?). Developing nations learn very fast that if you cheat, lie, and steal you gain respect as an economic superpower.
Security is at best a function of how well you trust your neighbor.
Yell into a megaphone that someone is dumb or that you have a bank account and you should not expect your secrets to be kept.
Internet and World Wide Web are extremely explicit in their definitions. You are putting data onto a system of communication that the entire world can see.
The means of expression were invented long before anyone thought about how to secure those expressions. You can encrypt a signal as you broadcast it to the world, but be aware that somebody invented that system of encryption and sold it to several buyers. Pass a note through 6 billion hands and you might expect one of those hands to be able to read it.
Stop putting sensitive material into EVERYBODY’S hands and you may achieve security. Failing that, at least use a firewall that bothers to look if your printer software wants to e-mail every contact in your address book without your instructions. There might be a problem with that.
Or did you really have to know if the girl with the snake tattoo dropped an ice cube two minutes ago regardless of who sent you that tidbit; because your phone is capable of providing important twitters like that.
Last thoughts! Turning your new smart phone off or removing the battery definitely does not provide security. The company that produced that technology allowed for the need to GPS track you by remote control in case you are a threat to national security of any country that pays for technology.