And another thing....

I need help

2008-04-07T14:35:26+02:00

I am having difficulty knowing what to do in terms of making environmentally sound decisions. When I buy fresh fruit and veg I check the packets to see where it was grown. My local supermarket (I know I should not shop in supermarkets, but there is not much option) does not stock much fruit and veg that is grown in the uk. That which is, is over packaged and grown in hothouses. Which should I buy? Why do we only have the capacity to see one issue at a time. We need to reduce carbon emissions because human caused climate change is real, but we also need to save paper because at the moment we are cutting trees down quicker than we are planting them, we also need to reduce the amount of chemicals and hormones we pump into the water systems and we even if you ignore carbon climate we need to reduce the consumption of non renewable fossil fuels because they are NON renewable. We have seen from the issue of biofules that concentrating on one issue at a time that we make mistakes. We need a concerted effort giving full information to the public telling us how to make the best decisions. How much energy does polythene packaging take to make, how much petroleum does it take out of circulation, how long does it take to decompose, how many animals do get injured by it? how much energy does it take to recreate spain in the UK so that we can grow out of season veg? Is that more of less than flying veg here? Are there any other issues we need to worry about? How much more does a fair trade farmer get? is this the same as the mark up on fair trade products? does this justify buying environmentally friendly products? can we use the fair trade levy as an encouragement to grow products energy efficiently? what about carbon off setting? does it work? is it just a way of paying to make yourself feel better? like medieval lords of the manor paying to get into heaven whist continuing to be a bad person? All these questions have to be asked and answered, as do questions of how big business can make a difference. If we don't find answers than ordinary people will continue to feel like what they do does not make a difference.

Comments

Personal Social responsibilty

2008-03-30T19:42:23+02:00

I am only 25 years old so I cannot tell you if its not like it was in the old days but it seems to me that no one seems to have any sense of social responsibility. It is the little things, such as parking in bus stops. This might make your journey 3 or 4 seconds shorter but it has an effect on maybe hundreds of other people's journeys. Talking of buses, how comes TFL needs to run a poster campaign asking people to give up seats to pregnant women and not play music too loud - what are schools and parents teaching people?? Walking hand in hand down a crowded street and not move out of people's way, driving four by fours with bull bars, using carrier bags once (not because you don't think you can make a difference to climate change but because you can't be bothered to re use them) I don't think people are acting selfishly, its not that they don't care that their actions can have an adverse effect on others - I just don't think they think about it at all. People just don't seem to have any clue that in fact other people exist at all!!

Comments

Vote of conscience?

2008-03-25T19:54:05+01:00

I agree totally that MPs should be allowed a free vote in the upcoming Embryology debate. The fact I believe every vote should be a free one based on an MPs individual conscience and what they think their constituents would want them to vote for. They are, after all, elected to represent their constituents.
I do have a problem with people's opinions being based on their religion. Of course, if someone has been brought up within a particular faith (children and religion is another entry entirely) then this will influence their opinion. So many things affect people opinion that it can never be broken down for bits to be eliminated. The way in which it bothers me is people picking their religion first and from that they decide their opinions. When I was growing up, I think asked questions about the world around me, I had RE lessons telling me of all the different world faiths(not atheism) My father was a scientist and my mother ran the local Brownie Unit with whom I went to church on the odd occasion. Many aspects of religion and belief bothered me and I finally worked out I was an atheist(I went through non-defined spiritualist - there is something out there but I don't know what, and agnostic we can never know) But to do this I worked out how I thought the world worked and then picked a category that best fit. I do not use my atheism to define me, however passionate I am about. I do disagree with Richard Dawkins somethimes, and if the atheism community urged me to vote a particular way that I did agree with I would say well as an atheist I think this.
When it comes to having faith the world would be a better place. People would question how they thought the word got here, how many gods they think there are, whether Jesus was the son of God or just prophet and other such questions. When they had there answers they would see which of the major religions was closet to them and align themselves with that for reasons of census and weekly worship. Every particular time a matter of opinion came up they would decide what they thought and then see if they could still align themselves with that particular religion or if they now differ too much.
Cynical thought - Maybe it is because this kind of critical thought would send people rushing away from God and weekly donations that the world religions spend so much time saying " as a X you think this".
What is the difference between Gordon Brown and the Pope being the Whip????

Comments

Evolution

2008-03-18T01:59:34+01:00

Why do people consistantly misunderstand evolution?

To me is it such a simple premis that the response should be - what took us so long?

Humans reproduce.
Traits are inherited in a particulate fashion.
These are copied pretty much but not completely accurately.
Therefor variety in a population.
Good traits = longer lives, more offspring.
Those offspring have the good traits.
Over time changes in environment = changes in what is a good trait.
Over time the traits of a species change eventually so much so that a new species is born.

Maybe because of the numbers involved. The time scale we have from the origin of life is in the billions of years. This number is incomprehensable to most people. We deal in decades, centuries maybe. This large time scale has to be understood to grasp that tiny little changes, which would most likely go unnoticed at the time, can accumulate to produce the eye, the backbone and every other characteristic displayed by an organism.

Maybe because it shows us we are not special, and that we are just one of many ways evolution has thrown up to solve the problem of surviving long enough to reproduce.

Maybe it is because evolution is taught as a ladder of being - this, on closer examination, does not hold true. With this idea in their head people are right to question why are there still chimps when humans evolved from them.
Humans did not evolve from chimps - Humans and chimp evolved from a common ancestor. This ancestor was not the best solution to life in its environment, both modern chimp and modern man were equally viable better adapatations. Not that they were being aimed for. Natural selection happens one generation at a time with no goal. It just changes as time goes on. Today is not an end point.

Maybe it is the religious thing. Not only do many religions teach against evolution because it does away with the need for god, but they teach against critical thought. They teach that if it doesn't sound right then it can't be so. They also teach that a happier easier answer is a better more truer one. It is nice to think of a benevolant good making the world for us, and not so to think that we came from a simple process that also produced slime moulds, sponges and deadly viruses. It may be nicer to think this - that does not make it true.

Maybe it is because it is acceptable to have an ignorance in science - It is not looked upon as bad to say I do not know how the basic principles of the world around me work. It is also acceptable to admit that you have not tried and do not care.

I am not sure why so many people fail to get evolution but I think it is time something concerted was done about it. Schools need to teach it from such an early stage that is understood, not just that people can recite it.

For anyone who wants to truely grasp the power and wonder of evolution I recommend two books.
The Ancestors Tale - Richard Dawkins
Almost Like a Whale - Steve Jones

Comments

Quick fixes

2008-03-16T17:10:51+01:00

Why do people think the problems of the world can be solved overnight?
There are many problems that I could talk about here but I will pick one that I know something about.
Teenage pregnancy - We are constantly being told in the UK that we are up there with the worst offenders and rising. It seems our teens are popping them out left right and center. If we really want to deal with this problem then first we are going to need a thorough investigation into the causes of the problem. Is it low self esteem? Is it lack of sex education? Is it young girls wanting council houses? To find this out would need a multi faceted investigations for which we have to be prepared to accept the conclusions. If we discover that the problem belongs to one particular social group and the solution will cost multi-million investment and 20 years, then we will need decide if the problem costs that much to society, if it does then we invest. To discover the root cause of the problem we should compare people in this country who get pregnant at an early age to those who don't (we should not concentrate on only the women either, comparing men who have a child and support it, to those who get someone pregnant and leave to men who do not have children until they and their partner are older) and we should compare England to countries who have worse rates and countries who have better rates. To do this we are going to have decide what statistics we care about? At what age do we stop counting, do we have some kind of weighting scheme for young parents who have already set up home together, have a regular income and have made a conscience decision to have a child compared to a one night stand that went wrong, do we count each child that a young woman has or is she already a statistic once she has had her first under age child? All this questions need to be answered before we investigate the problem.. If we want to be truly unbiased, we should also decide before the investigation what we consider the bottom line is for substantial investment.
When we have thoroughly investigated the problem I am going to guess that we find a multitude of interconnecting issues are the cause. These are going to be problems that themselves need time to solve. Quality sex education has to be multi faceted and start from an early age. Children who have already reached 14 without this education are unlikely to get the message overnight. The statistics will tell what kind of sex education works, we should not use wishful thinking. Does educating girls aged 10 cause them to have sex rather than prevent pregnancy? My guess is no but the figures will show us the way. The same goes for the type of education - we know from many countries that advocate abstinence only education that for them it does not work, what about here? We should not concentrate on pregnancy either. Introducing topics such as STIs and the emotion attached to sex and losing your virginity in a situation you later regret is important too. From personal experience thorough understanding of the biology and emotions involved plus plenty of education regarding contraception works, but we should not focus on personal experience as there is little comparison in it. As well as examining sex ed, we should look at issues such as availability of contraception. Take the emotion out of the subject, does offering the pill to young girls encourage sex? If it does, do we care if it also reduces the teen pregnancy rate? The program needs to supplemented with good quality PHSE lessons. Girls need to know what options there are for their future, that even if they do not see themselves as particularly academic there are plenty of careers available to them. They need to know the truth about what having a baby will do these options, if that truth is that it will have no negative impact this should be included in the education. Young people need to know the reality of caring for a child. This should not focus on how hard it is to raise a child alone because girls who have babies mainly assume the man will stand by her side. Instead, show how hard it is to raise a child if there is two of you. How much less sleep you will have, how much less money you will have, how you will have to pay for a baby sitter if you want to go out. Again positive sides should not be hidden. Having a child can bring love and joy to any family. Facts about children who are born to young parents should also be shared, do they have more or less chance of behavioral problems? What about getting jobs? ending up in jail? The statistics should be presented truthfully. The importance of taking the child welfare into account, that having a baby does not affect just you. This kind of education takes time, It requires a background in understanding statistics, social responsibility and self esteem. If we abandon any project to instill after 2 years because there are no immediate response we will be making a mistake.
Investigations can be made into other problems with society, crime unemployment etc. My guess ( though the investigations will show the truth) is that the kind of education I talk about above will help these issues too.
We must try our best to take emotion and the desire for a quick fix out of these decisions, let the experts take time deciding what we need to do and then give them time to do it.

Comments

Blasphamy

2008-03-13T21:14:24+01:00

This is probably gonna come out as an unorganised mess as although I well versed in the art of being opinionated I am not so good at getting things down in writing.

I thought I'd start with a little bit of everything - but If I get the hang of this and start churning things out I'll break everything down into smaller categories.

Stop procrastinating you say and get to the good stuff.

The Blasphemy laws (sub topic hate crime)

There are motions in place currently to overturn the law that makes blasphemy illegal.
This I think is a good thing. We live in a country that likes to pride itself on its freedoms - which includes the freedom of speech. Obviously, freedoms like rights come with responsibilities and with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to not to say anything that incites crime, defames character or is racist,sexist,homophobic etc. But should we worry about offending peoples beliefs or questioning their opinions? What is it about religion that requires special treatment in this way? Religion is, when all is said and done, someone's opinion on how the world got here and how we should live our lives. There is no law that says people cannot criticise my scientific understanding of where the universe came from, or my morals built on my political opinions and upbringing. If someone were to disagree with me on any of these things I would debate with them, explain why I thought what I thought and show them the evidence that backs me up, but I would ask the law to tell them to stop questioning me. I guess that is because I am able to back up these things where as religion cannot. The fear of criticism and questions led them way back when to ask for a law that outlawed it. Because fear of wrong doing and absolute obedience are a good thing to have in the population when you are a dictator, the law was passed. Now that we are living in a good attempt at a democracy this law must go.

Comments

Bottled water plastic bags and other eco probblems

2008-03-13T20:29:36+01:00

Does the Evening Standard understand the irony of using up paper to campaign for restaurants to offer tap water due to the environmental damage causes by packaging and transporting bottled water. Tap water has always and will always been on offer in restaurants. Making people aware of this and showing them that consumer power is the way to influence what is available may be a worthy cause. Restaurateurs have even been jumping on the band wagon - Surely they must have been able to work out all along that bottled water is bad for the environment and that if they put profit motive to one side they would have been promoting tap water at their tables for a while and offering only UK produced bottled water for the die hard fans. They have not been pushing the eco alternative because until 2 weeks ago and a horizon show which quite frankly stated the obvious there was profit in bottled water. There is only profit in a product that people want to buy.
This is the same for everything available in a free market - If you don't want it don't buy it! If something is produced unethically do not campaign for it to be banned - don't buy it.

Breaking news!!! I heard today on the news that plastic bags are not as bad to turtles as we thought and that the pictures of them choking on bags are greatly exaggerated. This may or may not be the case. It does not change that fact that plastic bags are bad for the environment. They are made from plastic which comes from oil. There is not much oil left. It takes energy to make them. Energy comes from oil. There is not much oil left. Burning oil to make plastic bags releases carbon dioxide. Running lorries to carry plastic bags release carbon dioxide. There is too much Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Free plastic bags at the counter encourage us to use them once and through them away - this is bad, it equals less oil and more carbon dioxide. It is this simple. It is the same with all types of consume goods. If an item takes energy to make, package and transport and is disposable it is bad for the environment. If there is not alternative item then this may be justifiable, if you do not care about the environment - this is justifiable, if you think its not up to you its up to big business and china to end climate change then this may be justifiable. But do think about what I said above - If there is a profit in it then someone will sell it.
Lets make it less profitable to over package and over travel things. Reuse carrier bags - you may not save the turtles but you will be helping climate change.

Comments

First post.

2008-03-07T13:09:27+01:00

Hello
This is my first post so I thought I'd introduce myself a bit and then talk about what I intend to with this space.
My name is Marie Cooper and I am 25 years old. I live in Peckham Rye in South East London. I have lived south of the river most of my live and I love it. I work in a train station in London, pointing people to their trains and take grief when they miss them. In my spare time I volunteer at the Natural History Museum in London which I love doing to pieces.
I intend to use this space to share my opinion on things that happen in my life and in the use. It may well turn into a general opinionated rant but at least this way I won't be burning peoples ears off in real life.

Comments