Group Writing–for better or worse?

Hey guys!

So as we are finishing up with our group papers, I was thinking about how our group went about the writing process, and was wondering if other groups were similar or different. Professor Myers suggested to our group that we write together, by sitting down and talking aloud while assigning one person to dictate what’s being said. And to be honest, we tried that and it didn’t work. With four people talking, thinking, and trying to organize thoughts into a coherent essay, there’s no way it’s not going to be messy. We had our best success by each writing separate sections, then putting them together and editing it then. I know that runs the risk of it seeming a bit “choppy”, but I just don’t see how a twenty page paper can be written together. Do any other groups write pieces separately, or was anyone able to successfully group write? And if so, how did you go about doing it?

GMOs? GM-Nos!

It is unlikely that the alleged benefits of GMOs can outweigh their potential harm. There is no way to avoid GMOs,because the FDA and USDA do not require these foods to be labeled. A recent poll shows that 53% of Americans say they won’t purchase foods that have been genetically modified, but most are unaware that they already do. More than 90% of U.S. soybean crop is genetically modified. More than three quarters of all corn planted in the U.S. is genetically modified. Up to 70% of all antibiotics in the U.S. are given to healthy livestock. Overall, more than 65% of all grocery store products have genetically modified ingredients. Organic foods can’t contain more than 5percent GMOs by law, but even that is not completely effective today. Once a GMO is out there, there is no taking it back. There has been cross-breeding of natural crops and species with those that have been genetically engineered, which results in mainly GEs and loss of organic crops.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved three new kinds of genetically engineered foods: alfalfa (which becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol,and sugar beets. The FDA approved a super-fast-growing salmon, the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but probably not the last. You can blame Monsanto, a multinational biotech corporation that’s out to control the world’s food supply, starting with seeds and herbicides, and ending with shutting down hundreds of small farms. The biotech industry has spent over half a billion dollars on G.M.O. lobbyists in the last decade, and Michael Taylor, the F.D.A. deputy commissioner for foods, was once vice president for public policy at Monsanto.

We seem to have it backwards. In Europe, GE crops are barely grown. There are strict bans on imports, and most foods containing more than 0.9 percent GMOs must be labeled. The surge in suicides among Indian farmers has been attributed by some, at least in part, to GE crops. GE products may grow faster, require fewer pesticides, fertilizers and herbicides, and reduce stress on land, water and other resources, but these same goals may be achieved by simple advances in conventional agriculture, such as drip irrigation. What’s needed to feed world hunger is not new technology, but a better distribution system and a reduction of waste. We are the guinea pigs of today’s GMO regulators, mainly Monsanto.

What few Darwinists realize: There’s more than just natural selection

I was recently pursuing a book store and happened across a book with a particularly provocative title, “What Darwin Got Wrong”. After reading the synopsis, I found myself quite agreeing with the book’s hypothesis: there’s more to the creation of organisms than just the process of natural selection. Indeed, natural selection is just one of a whole host of explanations that are be valid.

You can find a helpful summary and review of the book here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/06/what-darwin-got-wrong

Consider this: why can’t pigs fly? Under the theory of natural selection alone, pigs probably should fly. Under natural selection alone, somewhere over the course of millions of years, pigs would have mutated to the point where some would have wings, and those wings would help winged pigs survive better than others without wings. Thus the pigs with wings would be more likely to procreate, and soon the whole species would have wings. But pigs don’t have wings. The explanation: laws of statistics, physics, and chemistry, according to the article. Pigs don’t have wings because these laws entail pig bone structure is ordered in a very precise, organized fashion that does not allow for wings, but works fine for pigs otherwise.  (unfortunately, the article does not make mention of how these laws contribute to pig bone structure).

Furthermore, the process of mutation and transmission of genes is more random and complicated than originally thought. So, it is probable that there are many other reasons as to how animals became so organized and complex. Truly random mutations cannot account for the ultra-complexities of the human brain, for instance. There must be other factors that contribute in addition to the process of natural selection, factors that more or less guide in the process and disallow for things like, pigs with wings.

The Straw That Brings Life

I don’t know about everyone else, but I have found that I am almost disconnected to the real world when I am at school.  It’s like I am in my own little world, because whenever I am reconnected with my family I always seem to be out of the loop of what is happening in the world.  For example, my parents came to visit me this weekend and at dinner one night I found out about this straw that completely extracts water out of any substance.  I was so amazed at this new founding I had to blog about it.

Water is the number one resource that every human needs, but for less fortunate people water supply is not as abundant as we believe it is based on our own lifestyles. Lifestraw is the solution to increasing water supply to desolate villages and improving life.  Implemented by the Rotary Club of Brynmawr, the Lifestraw is a portable water filter that prevents any diarrhoeal diseases through filtering all bacteria and parasites from watering holes, lakes, any water source in general.  When I first heard about the Lifestraw, I was told that it filters water from substances even mud. That is when my jaw dropped.

Finding about the LifeStraw actually made me so incredibly happy because it is an innovation that clearly can make a difference and bring water to suffering children and adults that truly need it. I really think LifeStraws can change the world, what do you guys think? Are you as excited for the LifeStraw as I am?

Toxic Profit

If big corporations had their way, the air we breathe would be way more polluted than it is now, as if it’s not polluted enough. It’s a wonder that people don’t throw up most of the things they eat, given the amount of hormones and toxins put into our food and water supply. We come into contact with harmful chemicals and toxic food and water every day, due to sewage contaminated water, hydrofracking, pesticides, and genetically modified foods. New Yorkers currently produce about 1.3 billion tons of wastewater daily. Gas drilling, using both hydraulic fracturing to release gas and horizontal drilling techniques that can snake underground far from the actual bore holes, is now moving into closer proximity to American population centers than in the past. Two years after hydraulic fracturing fluids were legally spread on a section of the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia, more than half of the trees in the affected area were dead.

Every ton of carbon dioxide pollution causes around $20 of damage to economies, ecosystems and human health. That sum times 20 implies $400 worth of damage per American per year. Five chemicals that we come across every day are linked to a host of ailments, including cancer, behavioral issues, and sexual problems. They are bisphenol A, or BPA; phthalates; PFOA; formaldehyde; and polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PDBEs. We encounter them every day in plastic bottles, storage containers, food wrap, cans, cookware, appliances, carpets, shower curtains, clothes, personal care products, furniture, television sets, electronics, bedding, cushions, mattresses, etc. Studies on birth defects and pregnancy issues are finding hundreds of toxic chemicals in the bodies of mothers, and subsequently, in their babies after birth. The amount of chemicals measures in babies’ cord blood affects their IQ levels. Among these are plastics, mercury, and pesticides. All of this boils down to a simple statement: what is good for business is not always good for us.

Early Warm Weather? Could Mean Danger for Some Areas

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/warm-spring-drought-wildfires-water-shortages/

Some of you may have noticed those few warm days in March this year, and perhaps one or two even as early as February! Where I’m from, Alabama, it’s easily 85 degrees by March, but I’m told that up here, it was unusually warm. People have posted several articles about climate change and environmental impact, and I thought this was an interesting follow-up and relation. This article from National Geographic talks about some of the impacts of this warmer than normal weather. As illustrated in the above picture, water levels are dropping in large amounts, especially in Western states.

On April 10th, 61% of the lower 48 states in America were listed by the U.S. Drought Monitor to be in abnormally dry or drought conditions. 61%, in April! That’s pretty early, and points to rough next few summer months. And the Southwest, which largely relies on ice melt into the Colorado River Basin from the Rocky Mountains and previous years’ melt stored in the Lake Powell and Lake Mead Reservoirs for its water supply, is poised for a dry, hot summer, because those areas received less than 70 percent of the average snowfall according to the USDA National Water & Climate Center.

These reservoirs are already at just 64% capacity, after a decade long drought from 2000-2010, with the upcoming drought looking worse. Climate change poses a threat of increased drought in a region with a long climatological record of natural drought. According to the article,”In a 2010 report on the county-level effects of climate change on U.S. water supplies, an analysis by consulting firm Tetra Tech and NRDC projected that by 2050, 27 out of 64 counties in Colorado will face high or extreme risks of water shortages, as well as 13 out of 29 in Utah, 19 out of 33 in New Mexico, 36 out of 58 in California, and a startling 13 out of 15 in Arizona.”

These numbers are frightening, as with all of these droughts comes wildfires. In May 1996, the Buffalo Creek fire burned 11,900 acres within the watershed of the South Platte River, a major source of Denver’s municipal water. Two months later, heavy rains washed tons of sediment into the Strontia Springs Reservoir, which holds approximately 80 percent of Denver’s water supply. In one day, the reservoir lost 30 years of its 50-year lifespan. And, most people should remember the March 26 fire in the Lower North Fork region of southeast Colorado killed three people, destroyed 27 homes, and blazed through 4,000 acres. And, with population numbers increasingly rapidly each year, this water shortage can only mean trouble for the future.

If these rapidly depleting water supplies are not addressed and replenished soon, it could have devastating effects on areas of the United States. Do you guys think that the United States local and federal governments should do more to solve these issues? Should more focus be placed on these impending problems?

Reasons to Fear a Zombie Apocalypse

What do 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, Planet Terror, and Resident Evil all have in common?: They are all zombie movies and may be farther from fiction than you think. In fact, spiders, cockroaches, worms, crabs,  and even, cats have all been found to fall prey to parasites who take over their brain and turn them into zombies. Although these prey are not technically “the living dead”, as is the classical definition of zombie, their bodies become nothing more than a host for the control of the parasite. Scientists are still uncertain exactly how these creatures achieve mind control.

One example of a living zombie is the spider Plesiometa argyra. Although usually an expert builder of perfectly round webs, just one sting from a parasitic wasp is enough to strip it of this vocation. The wasp immediately deposits its larvae inside the spider’s body causing the Plesiometa argyra to spend the last night of its life constructing a silk cocoon, which becomes a home for the wasp. No longer of use, the larvae kill the spider upon the sack’s completion.

Pill bugs normally spend their entire lives under logs, hiding from predators. Upon ingesting a parasitic worm, however, the bug will behave erratically, crawling out into the open where a starling can claim it as a snack. This allows the worm to enter the bird’s stomach, an optimal environment for reproduction.

Even more shocking is the fate of the cockroach should it come into contact with a green jewel wasp. In this scenario, the latter will essentially perform brain surgery on the cockroach, injecting a venom that blocks octopamine, the neurotransmitter which allows alertness and movement.  Only then is the wasp is able to plant its larvae inside the roach’s body, where they live for a week before eating the roach from the inside out.

Humans are not exempt from the potential dangers of parasites. Parasites are so alarming because they are able to quickly spread through vast populations and tend to be extremely resistant to antibiotics. Scientists claim that at least half of us carry the parasitic protozoa Toxoplasma gondii (usually due to raw meat consumption) which is carried for life once contracted.  Toxoplasmosis, researchers have found, might make people more likely to be schizophrenic, and can change personality in subtle ways. Other parasites have also been proven to threaten human functioning. This has to leave one wondering what the possibilities of a viral parasite could mean for the future.

The Final Frontier?

Celestial findings have always held a strange fascination for me; in a world that is rapidly shrinking in its exposure and proximity, where better for one to turn to when it comes to daydreaming of adventure and the great unknown. As a humble Star Trek fanatic, I’ve been meaning to do a post all semester about space exploration but nothing quite relevant nor worthy of the topic caught my eye until this past week. 

US space entrepreneurs have just announced a venture to launch robotic prospectors in the hopes of bringing water and other precious minerals back to earth from certain asteroids. My initial reaction was one of overwhelming excitement, and I thought this would be plenty of inspiration for a post. The aftermath of this announcement however, turned out to be even more thought-provoking.

Frans von der Dunk, (quite the name) a professor of space-law at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, has publicly announced his opinion that the applicable legal-system, both in the US and internationally, must be further developed to catch up to this sort of technological innovation. Although there are certain treatises and pieces of legislative work that address the legalities of space-initiatives, such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty which says that outer space constitutes a “global commons”, it is a field that is far too underdeveloped for this kind of mission.

My initial, admittedly not mature reaction, was not a positive one. Who is this Frans von der Dunk to limit the genius of today’s space cowboys? Having given it some thought though, I realize that his words of caution may be in our best interest. It is so tempting to throw caution to the wind and jump into an idea, a new project, so overwhelmed are we by the thrill of seeing inspiration materialize through hard work. This often blinds us to the repercussions of our actions, and disasters that could have been prevented by more careful planning have a way of coming out of the woodwork. The space race has been an area of contention for decades, and its parameters remain vaguely undefined. In the article I read, the authors compared this sort of project to deep-sea mining- what jurisdiction is applicable in such an alien environment? Who is responsible for the projects that go on there and the products they send back home? Should this be part of the public or private sector? Who can determine ownership and rights in a place that is physically beyond the realm of human control? 

I think that this is fascinating because it is one of the issues that our generation is going to have to contend with. Although I’ve accepted that I will probably never get to co-captain the USS Enterprise, I still value the importance of questions that bridge our life on Earth with the adventures and possibilities that outer space has to offer. What do you guys think? Where are our responsibilities in terms of this?

Here’s the link to the article to read more!http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426134927.htm 

 

Brain freeze sheds light on animal rights

Any real fan of House will remember that episode when the protagonist induced a headache in a comatose patient in order to test a new medication. Later on, he did the same to himself, in the noblest of self-sacrifices for the sake of science. 

In the same vein, this article from the Huffington Post that deals with brain freeze briefly discusses the ethics of inducing migraines in patients to test medications and to observe the affliction itself. Surely, though, our standards for how we treat ourselves–the members of our own species–should have some implications on how we treat other species. A rat, for example, stands to lose far more when injected with cancer cells than a human does when injected with nitroglycerin, no? What other argument is there except the antiquated Great Chain of Being one to justify practices in which our morals seem inconsistent? Unless we accept that God granted humans dominion over ever living thing, where do we look to justify the speciesism that dominates our worldview? 

Thinking in a Foreign Language Helps Economic Decision-Making

In this article http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120425093938.htm research supported by the National Science Foundation has presented evidence that runs contrary to establish economic theory.  In this study researchers studied the difference between when someone makes a decision in a foreign language as opposed to their mother tongue. As it turns out people have a better chance of making more advantageous if they consider their options in a foreign language. This is due to the fact that when someone thinks in a foreign language their brain functions in a more deliberate manner which makes way for better decision making.