ScottsdaleCommunityCollege Department
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
We are committed tooffering high-quality, collaborative, affordable, and accessible opportunities that enablelearners to achieve lifelongeducational, professional, and personalgoals.
TheMaricopaCommunityColleges areEEO/AA Institutions.
ScottsdaleCommunityCollegeimprovesthe
MARICOPA
qualityoflifeinour communitiesbyprovidingchallenging, supportive, anddistinctivelearningexperiences.
English
11 T\Vo Waters Revie\V StudentEssaysfromFall2015-Spring2016 Volume 1, Issue 2
All student works collected here are Copyright © 2016 by their respective authors. Licenses for publication in Two Waters Review by the English Department of Scottsdale CommunityCollege are on file at the college.
). The originals and derivative works are all licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Volume 1, Issue 2 September 2016
Cover image: “TWR Cover 1.2” by Matthew Bloom is a derivative work that uses Firefox OS Emojis (accessed via Wikimedia Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Emoji) to decorate an illustration of DNA from chapter two of the OpenStax Anatomy and Physiology textbookwhich can be found in full and for free at https://openstax.org/details/anatomy-and-physiology
iii
iv Table of Contents Medicine and Human Health 1….Kennedy DiLorenzo “The Global Organ Shortage: An Unforeseen Consequence of Medical Advancement” 11….Chris Hamilton “Tailoring Our Genes for the Perfect Fit” 17….Connor Jackson “The Possibility of Stem Cells” 24….Rocio Marquez “Confined to be Fat” Environmental Health 31….Samuel Cohodas “The Repercussions of Oil Palm Cultivation in Southeast Asia” 38….Mana Yoneuchi “Colony Collapse Disorder and How It Affects You” 44….Jonathan Trautman “The Urgency of Global Climate Awareness and Action” A Unique Take 53….Tessa Sadow “Modern Hieroglyphs - Cross Cultural Communication”
1 Kennedy DiLorenzo Eng 102The Global Organ Shortage: An Unforeseen Consequence of Medical Advancement 4,761. That is the number of people who died in one year waiting to receive an organ donation. Another, 3,668 in the same year became too sick to qualify for an organ donation, essentially locking in their fate of dying from a curable disease (“Organ Donation”). This tragedy is called the Global Organ Shortage and it affects every well-developed nation across the world today. Many people are on the organ donation waiting list for years, suffering as a result of their failing organ, only to be told that no match has been found, and that they have run out of time. The problem, however, is not a lack of suitable organs for donation. Rather, the issue is a shortage of people who are willing to legally sign over their organs to those in need, either as heroic living donors, or, more commonly, after death. The Global Organ Shortage facing our world today stems from the broken system currently in place, along with a lack of education on the process of organ donations, and can ultimately be solved through expanded education on the topic along with compensation paid to organ donors. While organ transplantation has only been around for roughly one hundred years in the United States, the leaps and bounds that have been made in the field have been immense. The early days of organ transplantation were filled with failure after failure with the first transplants actually being attempted using animal organs in 1906. These initial attempts were entirely unsuccessful, but hope for the practice remained and thirty years later another attempt occurred, this time dealing with a human kidney from a deceased donor. The problem with this attempt was that blood typing did not yet exist in the 1930’s, so the patient’s body rejected the foreign organ. The first successful organ
2 transplant didn’t occur until 1954, when Doctors Joseph E. Murray, John Hartwell Harrison, and John P. Merrill conducted a kidney transplant between identical twins. This worked well because identical twins have the same exact biological markers that keep the immune system from rejecting the organ. After 1967 transplants were able to really take off due to widely available immunosuppressants which block the body’s natural reaction to attack the foreign organ. Many firsts in transplantation happened in the following years, including heart, pancreas, and lung procedures. With time came even greater medications to aid in the transplant process, and by 1995 the rate of survival five years after a kidney transplant was up to 70-80%. Today the success rate of transplants has reached 90%, almost a miracle when compared to where the practice was just 100 years ago.However, with a greater success rate along with improved medical technology such as dialysis, the waiting list for organ donation has started to grow at an unanticipated rate. People who were given only weeks or months to live before can now live ten, twenty, sometimes even thirty years on dialysis. While the new technology extends their life expectancy it also, unfortunately, dramatically increases the number of people on the waiting list for organs. In fact, according to Donate Life America, "in the last ten years, the number of patients requiring an organ has doubled, while at the same time the actual number of transplants has barely gone up" (“Statistics”). The technology that prolongs the lives of people with certain organ failure has improved, but the problem will not ultimately be solved until we have a waiting list that is shrinking, not growing. The growing list of those in need and the rate at which people are dying from these treatable diseases is why it is imperative that we have an increase in organ donors. Becoming an organ donor might sound intimidating to some but it is actually very simple and straightforward. The United Network for Organ Sharing posted the following steps on their website:
3
For most people it is hard to imagine saving even one person’s life but, incredibly, that is the reality of becoming an organ donor. In addition to the organ recipient, those who donate positively impact the life of every person who loves and cares for the organ recipient by saving their loved one’s life. The possibility of making such a direct impact on so many people’s lives is unique to the organ donation process and is part of what makes it so incredible.
The organ donation process begins with a decision. You recognize the opportunity to help others by donating your organs when you die. You enroll in your state’s donor registry and share your decision with your family and friends. When your time comes, your organs may be used to save many lives. (“Donation”)
With just three simple steps one has the opportunity to positively impact, and even save, the lives of many people. With such a straightforward process it is perplexing that over 200 million people in the US are still not registered organ donors.
Though the process might be simple, the positive impact that becoming an organ donor can have on the lives of many individuals is an extremely rare opportunity. For instance, the website page “Why Donate?” on organdonor.gov states that, “one organ donor can save up to eight lives.”
Although many lives are saved every year by organ transplantation, there are a few major flaws in the system that is currently in place. A couple of these issues are a lack of authority granted to organizations dedicated to organ donations, along with a lack of incentive to become an organ donor. Many experts agree that these flaws in the system are directly causing the tragedy that is the Global Organ Shortage. There are many well regarded foundations, such as the Kidney Foundation or the United Network for Organ Sharing, who are dedicated to finding matches for organ donors and recipients but are not granted the authority to reach out to living donors. In the gap that is caused by these organizations being unable to find living donors via the internet, other less trustworthy websites
Another flaw in the current system that is causing the Organ Shortage is the National Organ Transplant Act. This law essentially eliminates all incentive to become an organ donor other than for
4 have popped up. These new websites allow those in need to pay a large sum to become members of the website, and receive the website’s organ matchmaking services in return. In “An Expert Interview With Arthur L. Caplan” done by Laurie Barclay MD., Barclay asks many questions regarding the ethical concerns of websites geared toward finding strangers to become live kidney donors for those who pay to be members of the website. Caplan is the department chair of medical ethics and director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, so he is able to give his expert opinion on the ethics of the websites. Throughout the interview Caplan makes it clear that while he is not against the principle of people recruiting strangers to donate their organs, he ha s many concerns about the process via the internet, specifically the lack of regulations on the new process. The main concerns Dr. Caplan has with it are the potential lack of truthfulness by those requesting donations, the lack of screening of those who wish to donate, possible extortion brought on by the process, and the general unfairness and inequality of opportunity for the potential transplant recipients taking part in the website. Overall, Caplan thinks the websites are not the proper way to go about searching for living organ donors. He states that a better alternative to these sites is to give the existing organizations, such as the Kidney Foundation or the United Network for Organ Sharing, the authority to extend their search to living donors, which they are currently lacking. Since the matchmaking websites only offer their services to those who can pay their fee, it leaves a lot of room for nefarious behaviour to occur. It makes sense that Dr. Caplan would rather the matchmaking be under supervision of one of the many trusted, non-profit organizations that exist already. If allowed the authority to do so, these organizations would have the potential to significantly decrease the number of people currently on the organ donation waiting list by reaching out to individuals interested in living donations.
While lack of education is a problem, misinformation compound the problem. Many people refrain from becoming donors because of common misconceptions that circulate around the topic.
Along with the flawed system currently in place, another major issue is the lack of education on the practice of organ donation and transplantations. Education on the process, as well as clearing up common misconceptions of organ donation is important for the future of organ transplantation and the elimination of the global organ shortage.
5 altruistic purposes, leading to a lack of incentive to register. In an article in New Republic titled "America's Organ Transplant Law Is Criminally Unfair to Donors" authors Sigrid Fry-Revere and David Donadio explain how “the law bans almost any non-medical payment to living organ donors, whether by the government, health insurance companies, or charities.” If this law did not exist more people could be incentivised to become organ donors, ultimately leading to many of the people who are currently waiting on the organ donation list being cured. Eliminating the law might even lead to the eradication of the Global Organ Shortage.
An increase of education on the benefits and process of organ donation has been shown to increase a person's likelihood of becoming an organ donor. For example, in the article "Impact of Organ Donation Education on US Undergraduate Nursing Students", Jane McCausland Kurz describes a study in which a research group of nursing students was given a supplementary course on the process and benefits of becoming an organ donor while a control group of nursing students was not educated specifically on the matter. Kurz explains how the study found that “more members of the research group than the control group registered as organ donors after the intervention.” This increase of organ donors following just one informational course on the matter supports the idea that education is a major key to solving the organ shortage crisis. If we can increase the number of donors significantly by integrating organ donation education into schools across the country, we could be one step closer to ending the Global Organ Shortage.
One of the most common myths pertaining to organ donation is that if an organ donor gets in a serious accident, the doctors will not try as hard to save that person’s life so that they can use their organs to save someone else’s life. While the myth is undoubtedley scary, the website TransWeb.org, sponsored by the University of Michigan Transplant Center, elaborates on how it is simply not true. They explain that: If you are sick or injured and admitted to the hospital, the number one priority is to save your life. The medical team treating you is separate from the transplant team. The team coordinating the donation is not notified until all lifesaving efforts have failed and death has been determined. The transplant team would not be notified until your family has consented to donation. (“Top 10”) As TransWeb explains, there is a process that a person goes through once admitted to the hospital that is not flexible. It is important for anyone who might believe this myth to understand that any doctor who is attempting to save the life of a patient is sworn under oath to do so, regardless of whether the patient has chosen to become an organ donor or not.
A second common misconception many people have is the belief that a person is discouraged by their religion to become an organ donor. TranWeb.org also refutes this myth by stating the fact that “all organized religions support donation, typically considering it a generous act that is the individual's choice”(“Top 10”). This is a very important fact but is, sadly, not widely known. This misunderstanding could be easily cleared up if religious leaders made an effort to emphasize their organization’s stance. It is imperative that these myths be eradicated so that those who are held back from becoming donors by believing them are freed from their fears and reservations. The ultimate result of debunking these misconceptions would be an increase in organ donors and, therefore, a decrease in the Global Organ Shortage.
6
Although education on organ donation is an extremely important step in solving the shortage, many believe think that it will not be enough to solve the problem on its own. Another way to save the lives of the thousands on the waiting list is to offer compensation for those who are willing to donate. While there are different ways to set up a compensatory system for organ donation, many believe it is the key step to be taken if we wish to solve the Global Organ Shortage. However, there is controversy over whether any such system would be morally sound. Despite the thousands of lives that could be saved by creating an incentive to donate organs by compensating the donors or the donors’ families, there are still many who believe it is unethical to put such a system in place. For instance in the article titled “Paid Organ Donation: The Case against” authors Anya Adair and Stephen J Wigmore explain that “the buying and selling of human organs and tissues can never be made ethical because it will always penalise the weakest.” By this they are saying that a system of compensated organ donors would target the poorest in society, therefore making it an unethical system. There are a couple flaws in this logic. The first is that they fail to acknowledge how the poorest in society are already being disproportionately targeted by our current, non compensatory, system that allows for the black market of organ procurement to flourish. If someone was desperate enough to sell their organs today for money, they would already have an opportunity to do so, albeit an illegal and most likely unfair opportunity. An organized system of reimbursement would be a safe, legal, and fair alternative to the black market we have now. The author’s argument is also flawed by presuming that a system must be unethical just because it affects one socioeconomic class more than another. If the system were to be put into place and the potential donor deemed healthy enough for the procedure, as well as thoroughly informed on what the donation entails, then why does it matter how much that person makes per year? It seems widely more unethical to deny those who are in need of organ donations a realistic opportunity to actually receive one based on a flawed interpretation of the compensatory system.
7
8
Benefit-In-Kind Reimbursement is a similar route but it is not the same as just receiving a check for organs. With a Benefit-In-Kind system, the donor is still compensated but it is done by giving the donor options of reimbursement such as income tax credit, tuition vouchers, or money towards a charity of their choice.This system is more attractive to those who might have ethical concerns about a reimbursement system. Many experts think this is the best option when it comes to compensating donors. In the interview "An Organ Shortage Kills 30 Americans Every Day. Is It Time to Pay Donors?" that was conducted by Keith Humphreys, Dr. Sally Satel expresses her support for benefit-in kind reimbursement by stating, “If we keep thinking of organs solely as gifts, there will never be enough of them. Deaths will mount, needless suffering will continue, and the global black market in organs will continue to flourish.” Satel’s words are chilling and reflect the immediacy of the situation we are currently facing. With Dr. Satel’s predictions, it may even be fair to argue that it is unethical to refuse compensation to donors, since refraining from doing so is a major reason for the current organ shortage that kills many people each day.
Responses, authors and economists T. Randolph Beard, David L. Kaserman, and Rigmar Osterkamp explain that the organ shortage crisis facing every major developed country of the world could be nearly eradicated by only implementing a monetary compensation for donated organs. Assuming that the economists’ prediction is correct, the ethical argument against paying donors for their organs becomes even harder to make. Surely preventing 10,000 deaths every year, even if it means monetary reimbursement for organ donors, is more ethical that letting people waste their life away on a waiting list, dying from a curable disease.
While the ethics of compensation paid to organ donors might be debated, the effect it would have on solving the Global Organ Shortage is enticing to those who recognize the immediacy of the situation we face. In the book The Global Organ Shortage: Economic Causes, Human Consequences, Policy
With the vast growth that has occurred in the field of organ transplants since the early 1900s, the shortage of available organ donors is inexcusable. With the growing disproportionate need for organs to those available, it is more important now than ever to reform our current broken system of strictly altruistic organ donation. While fixing this problem may initially sound like a daunting process, in reality there are a few realistic steps that can be taken to vastly reduce the Global Organ Shortage. Education on the matter is imperative, as well as the influence of societal authorities encouraging people to join. Finally, compensation paid to organ donors or their families will incentivize the donation of organs, encouraging people to register. The Global Organ Shortage takes 20-30 lives each day and is not something that we can afford to continue to ignore. Thousands of lives are currently at stake and everybody has the potential to make a change.
Interview by Keith Humphreys. Washington Post 20 Oct. 2014: n. pag. Print. Barclay, Laurie. Organ Donation via Internet Raises Ethical Concerns: An Expert Interview With Arthur L. Caplan, PhD. Medscape. Oct 22, 2004 Beard, T. Randolph, David L. Kaserman, and Rigmar Osterkamp. "Introduction." Introduction. The Global Organ Shortage: Economic Causes, Human Consequences, Policy Responses. N.p.: Stanford UP, 2013. 13-15. Google Play. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
9
Adair, Anya, and Stephen J Wigmore. “Paid Organ Donation: The Case against.” Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England 93.3 (2011): 191 192. PMC. Web. 5 May 2016. Satel, Sally. "An Organ Shortage Kills 30 Americans Every Day. Is It Time to Pay Donors?"
Works Cited
"Donation." UNOS. United Network for Organ Sharing, n.d. Web. 07 May 2016. "Dialysis." Kidney. National Kidney Foundation, 24 Dec. 2014. Web. 5 May 2016.
"Milestones in Organ Transplantation." Kidney. National Kidney Foundation, 12 Aug. 2014. Web. 31 Mar. 2016.
Irving, Michelle J., et al. "Factors That Influence the Decision to Be an Organ Donor: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Literature." Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. Oxford University Press, 21 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
"Why Donate?" Organdonor.gov. Health Resources and Service Administration, n.d. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
10
McCausland Kurz, Jane. "Impact of Organ Donation Education on US Undergraduate Nursing Students." Progress in Transplantation 24.2 (2014): n. pag. PubMed. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.
"Top 10 Myths About Donation & Transplantation." TransWeb.org. University of Michigan Transplant Center, 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 21 Apr. 2016.
Fry-Revere, Sigrid, and David Donadio. "America's Organ Transplant Law Is Criminally Unfair to Donors." New Republic. N.p., 23 Oct. 2014. Web. 05 May 2016.
"Organ Donation and Transplantation Statistics." Kidney. National Kidney Foundation, n.d. Web. 5 May 2016. "Statistics." Donate Life America. N.p., May 2015. Web. 05 May 2016.
Tailoring Our Genes for the Perfect Fit Everything is ruined by people who take things too far. It’s a shame that everyone has their own definition of what “too far” is. Powerful technology is available to us that can edit human DNA. It’s called CRISPR-Cas9, and it has the ability to accurately edit our genes. CRSPR was discovered in 2012 and works by taking a female egg or a male sperm and then using the CRISPR system to edit targeted genes. After the egg or sperm has been edited, in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is used to plant the fertilized egg in a womb. The whole process is called germ-line engineering and it doesn’t just modify the DNA of the embryo, but actually changes the genes so they can be passed on to future generations. This has the potential to change the way we look at science and medicine from treating people with genetically fatal diseases, to changing something like hair color. This could be revolutionary but it is not without its risks. Since it is so new, there is a lot of controversy regarding whether it is safe to apply this technology to humans or that we are taking evolution too far into our own hands. There is definitely room in our future for genetically modified genes but it is too early to begin testing it on humans. The application of genetic engineering on humans should be limited and regulated because there is a high chance that it will lead to social inequality benefitting the wealthy, its effect on future generations is unknown, and while the potential for the prevention of genetic disease is very promising, there is still a long way to go in terms of research. To start, if genetic engineering was made available to the public there would be a great chance that the wealthiest will be the first to have access to it. This would inevitably cause inequality between the rich and the poor. Ronald Bailey of the Reason Foundation writes in his article titled
11 Chris ENGHamilton102
12
“The Moral Case for Designer Babies” that in-vitro fertilization (IVF) has a cost of about $20,000. This process in itself is already a good sum of money. Antonio Regalado adds to this in his article for MIT Technology review, “An in-vitro fertility procedure costs about $20,000 in the United States. Add genetic testing and egg donation or a surrogate mother, and the price soars toward $100,000.” These genetic improvements will only be available to wealthiest who can afford such a procedure. These modifications might not even be for the betterment of humanity, but for vain aesthetic purposes like eye color or skin color. As Thomas H. Murray puts it in his article in the journal of Science: “Preventing lethal diseases is one thing; choosing the traits we desire is quite another” (Murray). Treating genetic diseases is a pursuit that is worth testing and could reduce the suffering of many generations. Choosing the traits of your child based on your own perception of beauty does not serve a greater purpose for society. Regardless if it was genes for looks, preventing disease, or even intelligence; it would be the wealthiest that would be given the option first. In an article for the Washington Post, George Church writes that these improvements would accumulate to a small portion of society: those that can afford it. These traits would no doubt be noticeable between the different classes and could single out the poor and put emphasis on those with more desirable genes. Regalado writes “germ-line engineering would encourage the spread of allegedly superior traits.” Those with the traits might be deemed superior to those without and there is a great potential for a divide between society and even discrimination: first to those who have modified genes, then to those without as it becomes more common. As time goes on, the cost for modifying genes will go down and the traits being passed will balance out through reproduction. But before that happens there could be generations of in-balance between societies. Another thing that is important to consider for genetically modified humans is what effects these genes might have on future generations. As of right now, the stance the American Medical Association has regarding germ-line engineering is that it should not be done because it could cause
It is extremely important that we understand how our genes interact with each other before we proceed. Even genes that are deemed negative now could potentially be useful later. “Lessons of history and evolution show we need diversity” explains Church, “We need immunological,
13
“unpredictable and uncertain results” as well as the fact that we don’t know what health effects future generations might run into due to germ-line engineering (Regalado). Our understanding of our own biology grows everyday but genetic engineering is still in its infancy. If we change one set of genes it might have an effect on another without our immediate knowledge of it. This could go generations without being noticed. In an article for the New York Times, Gina Kolata asserts that our understanding of gene interactions was minimal and that a baby who had its genes changed while it was an embryo, “could have unintended consequences that would be inherited by all of that person’s progeny.” These changes could potentially lie dormant for generations until a disease, or even a bad match from a partner, could trigger unwanted or even catastrophic results. Kolata goes on to say that this “makes it dangerous and ethically unacceptable.” There is a possibility that a sequence of modified genes have the right conditions to be targeted by an even more deadly disease. Church explains, “We already monitor many modern discoveries for long-term effects, and tools such as CRISPR should not be an exception.” He goes on to mention how in the past, health officials originally backed cigarettes and how the stroke and heart attack inducing painkiller “Vioxx” was only banned for its negative effects after 80 million people used it (Church). We should make sure CRISPR and other methods of genetic engineering are safe before we start using it on humans. These negative effects have the potential to be passed through generations of people. In an article for The Lancet, Bonnie Steinbock mentions that adding a certain gene to mice showed researchers an improved ability at solving the maze. It also made the mice extremely sensitive to pain (Steinbock). This shows how a positive change in one gene can lead to a negative effect in the other.
More often than not, CRISPR does not work exactly as planned. When talking to Regalado about his research on Marmoset monkeys, Feng notes, “Only about half the embryos will lead to live births, and of those that do, many could contain a mixture of cells with edited DNA and without” Feng further explains, “If you add up the odds, you find you need to edit 20 embryos to get a live monkey with the version you want.”. Ideally you would want both copies to be edited with the desired genes. That would mean in human parents you would have to set aside about 20 female eggs to get the desired result, and even then it is not guaranteed that the egg chosen will lead to a live birth. Regalado also spoke with Rudolf Jaenisch; an MIT biologist who created the first genemodified mice in the 1970s, who says attempts to edit human embryos is “totally premature.” As of right now, there are still too many unknowns to work out. CRISPR still needs to be studied and
14 metabolic, cultural, and mental diversity.” This means that it is extremely important for us to have a diverse set of genes. We should be careful which genes get altered and which ones don’t. Probably most importantly, though, is that we need to continue research for genetic engineering. This technology has the potential change medicine forever but we need to be cautious for how it is used. As Steinbock points out, we may be able to give our children “genetic edges” and that might affect future generations for the better, “that possibility should not be dismissed out of hand.” In his article, Regalado spoke with Guoping Feng, a biologist at MIT’s McGovern Institute for Brain Research. Feng notes that CRISPR could potentially edit genes in a human embryo unpredictably, but also notes that, “such problems may eventually be ironed out, and edited people will be born.” We do not fully understand what could happen when genes are edited but only with continued research can we pave the way to a healthier human. The CRISPR technique still has its own problems, and Feng’s studies have shown that there are still some difficulties that need to be worked out. Feng notes the efficiency for CRISPR is around 40 percent, and only about 20 percent of the time is it able to make more exact changes like switching individual nucleotides (Regalado).
15 optimized before we can even think about using it on humans. For now, the testing should just be left on animals.Thereare some who want to take a chance on this technology and begin its trials on humans. Werner Neuhausser, who works at Harvard’s Stem Cell Institute as well as the Boston IVF Fertility-Clinic network, thinks we should take that risk: “It was the same with IVF when it first happened,” Neuhausser says, “we never really knew if that baby was going to be healthy at 40 or 50 years. But someone had to take the plunge” (Regalado). The “plunge” was taken for In-vitro fertilization, but genetically altered babies pose a risk that could potentially affect multiple generations. Just because IVF didn’t end up posing any risks does not mean that altering our genes won’t either. We should be very careful with how we proceed with this technology. To deal with the issue of wealth inequality, Church posits that this can solved by passing a similar act as the “Orphan Drug Act” of 1983. This would distribute the cost throughout society and reduce it to make it more available to everyone in our country (Church). This would only work, though, for the countries that passed similar acts. There would still be other countries that don’t pass similar laws and there would still be inequality on a global scale. This would greatly affect the countries that can’t afford it. It is also pointed out that those with modified genes wouldn’t have any more effect on social inequalities than those that already exist such as bad schools and neighborhoods (Steinbock). The problem with this argument, though, is that bad neighborhoods and schools don’t have anything to do with your genes. What she implies is that existing causes for inequality would rule out further causes of inequality caused by gene enhancement.
Genetically modifying our future children could be a tremendous thing to happen for our society on a global scale, but we are not ready for that to happen just yet. Due to the high costs involved with genetic engineering, a new level of social inequality could arise, benefitting those wealthy enough to afford such procedures. It could be a long time before it balances it out, and it is
Kolata, Gina. “Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns”. The New York Times. 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 10 May 2016. Murray, Thomas H. "Stirring the Simmering ‘Designer Baby’ Pot." Science 343.6176 (2014): 1208. Web. 4 Apr 2016 Regalado, Antonio. “Engineering the Perfect Baby”. Technology Review. MIT Technology Review. 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 4 Apr 2016.
16 a problem that should be considered. Genetic engineering is also a new field in science and medicine and its effect on future generations and its long term consequences are still unknown. We should be careful with how we proceed with this powerful technology. That being said, the prevention of diseases is very promising. We should continue to research this technology before we use it on humans because there is still a long way to go before we perfect this technology and the risk no longer outweighs the reward. Works Cited Bailey, Ronald. "The moral case for designer babies: should parents be allowed to know if their fetus will get Alzheimer's?" Reason June 2014. Academic OneFile. Web. 9 May 2016. Church, George. "Eight questions to ask before human genetic engineering goes mainstream." Washington Post 3 Mar. 2016. Academic OneFile. Web. 9 May 2016.
Steinbock, Bonnie. "Designer Babies: Choosing our Children's Genes." The Lancet 372.9646 (2008): 1294-5. Web. 4 Apr 2016
17 Connor Jackson ENG 102
The Possibility of Stem Cells The advancements in recent medical procedures and cures have become something to truly admire. Most diseases can now be cured with a prescription; some problems can be fixed with a quick operation, and most of the really bad ones, like organ failure, can be cure with an organ transplant. There are of course limitations to these types of solutions. With some diseases, the simple cure cannot fix damage that has already been done. In the cases that require an organ transplant there needs to be an organ donor, unfortunately these organs are not always a match and many patients never receive an organ. However, if we were to focus more time and effort into research on Stem Cells the discoveries that we find could solve many of the problems in the medical field. By making Stem Cell research more of a priority we could help us cure diseases such as cardiovascular diseases and other complications, repair damage done to a person’s spinal cord, and solve problems that occur when trying to transplant a donated organ. To begin with, there are two different kinds of stem cells when people talk about stem cell research, embryonic and adult. Embryonic stem cells are obtained from eggs that have been fertilized “in an in vitro fertilization clinic and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donor. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman’s body” (NIH). With these stem cells, scientists can attempt to generate more by growing them in a laboratory. Although this process is sometimes inefficient, if the cells do survive and multiply, they multiply in vast amounts with plenty of stem cells that can be used for research or “frozen and shipped to other laboratories for further culture and experimentation” (NIH). With this the researchers can
18 manipulate the chemical environment so that the embryonic stem cell differentiates and become another type of cell that can be studied. They can form into cell types such as muscle, nervous, blood, and many more. However after the cells or culture of cells have been taken, they will only last for about six months without differentiating, so these stem cells tend to be valuable while they have them (NIH). Adult stem cells tend to be a little different. They can be taken from anyone, from children to fully grown adults, and tend to be found among differentiated cells of a particular tissue or organ that it specialized in. “The primary roles of adult stem cells in a living organism are to maintain and repair the tissue in which they are found” (NIH). These cells are located in many different parts of the body and each one is focused at making differentiated cells to repair that particular tissue or organ. Although scientists found out that if any of these stem cells are removed and placed in a lab, their ability to divide is limited. Meaning that adult stem cells simply do not grow as well in a laboratory as the embryonic stem cells (NIH).
There are several medical problems and diseases that could be cured if scientists were to focus more effort into stem cell research. One disease that is currently one of the biggest problems in the US is cardiovascular disease. In the article, Current Stem Cell Delivery Methods for Myocardial Repair, the author Calvin Sheng says that “Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are the number one cause of mortality worldwide, and their prevalence is projected to remain the single leading cause of death”. Currently, the only treatment for heart failure caused by cardiovascular diseases is a heart transplant. With limited donors and an even smaller amount being an organic match to the recipient, many patients of heart failure do not receive a heart. Therefore, researchers have started looking into ways to restore the hearts function by using stem cell therapy. The theory is that by introducing certain cells to the damaged or around the damaged area of the heart, the cells will be able to repair the damage. In the research that has already taken place, researchers have discovered that there are multiple cells required to accomplish such a repair. One type of cell cannot
19 fix everything, however it does seem to cause some positive results. For example, in the article titled Regenerative Medicine For The Treatment Of Heart Disease, written by E.M. Hansson and U. Lendahl, they mention that during an experiment involving the injured hearts of rabbits and sheep, researchers grafted skeletal muscle cells to the injured areas. Although the graft was successful there was a significant problem, the skeletal muscle that had been grafted to the Cardiac muscle did not magically turn into cardiac cells, nor did it improve the cardiac function but rather increased the instances of an irregular heartbeat. Because of this, these researchers discovered “that cells lacking a documented cardiac potential cannot be expected to differentiate to cardiomyocytes” (Hansson). Even though they were not successful with a cell type as abundant as skeletal muscle, there has been more success when using bone marrow-derived cells. Hansson and Lendahl’s article also mentions that, “To date, more than 1000 patients have been treated with non-cardiac cells, particularly bone marrow-derived cells, for various cardiac conditions”. Some clinical trials that show cellular therapy as the treatment for cardiovascular disease have shown varied results all along the spectrum of success, from a strong improvement to damaged tissue, to no signs of any positive effect in the affected area. REPAIR-AMI and STAR-heart, two of the more significant studies showed about a 3% improvement to damaged tissue function. (Hansson). After looking at these results it is clear that bone marrow stem cells have a much more positive effect than skeletal muscle cells previously mentioned. However the bone marrow stem cells still seem to be lacking the ability to transdifferentiate to cardiomyocytes, because of this scientists are not sure why bone marrow stem cells have the positive effect that they do. This shows that further research and experimenting needs to be do in order to better understand how we can achieve our desired medical goals.
Another medical problem that scientists hope to be able to cure using stem cells research is nervous system or spinal cord damage. In the article titled Neural Stem Cells And Regeneration of Injured Spinal Cord, the author Hideyuki Okano mentions that there are two major strategies used
20 when attempting to repair the spinal cord; the first is the “activation of endogenous neural stem cells”, and the second method is “cell transplantation therapies”. The difficult thing about trying to regenerate the spinal cord and repair injury is that although there are stem cells present, they do not naturally repair any damage done. This is why spinal injuries are usually so damaging; any injury directly done to the spinal cord could cause permanent damage. “In other words, although endogenous neural stem cells are present in the spinal cord and they do proliferate after a spinal cord injury, almost all of them differentiate into astroglia, not into neurons or oligodendroglia, which are myelin-forming cells” (Okano). However is past experiments, when transplanted into the hippocampus portion of the central nervous system, the neural stem cells did cause neurogenesis.
After further examination, researchers noticed that after damage to the spinal cord occurred, the body responded with inflammation, sending a variety of proinflammatory cytokines to the injured area. This inflammatory response causes the cells (including stem cells) to differentiate into astroglia cells, which would prevent the desired result of neurogenesis. Although they discovered that a single dose of anti-inflammatories did not improve injury, due to the short half-life of the specific drug, they believe that constant monitoring and doses of the anti-inflammatory drug over a longer period of time than was experimented with could cause more positive and noticeable results. They also discovered that the amount of time that passed between the injury and the stem cell therapy was a huge factor when it came to recovery (Okano). Although there are many factors limiting the success of this research there has been some progress and a small amount of success made so far, and given insight on new techniques that may be possible in the future (Okano).
A different branch of research that uses stem cells as a main focus is organ manufacturing or organ cloning. A rather large issue in the medical field that continues to be a problem is finding organ donors that match a specific patient. If an organ is not a good enough match, the patient’s body will begin to reject the transplanted organ. This means that the patient’s immune system begins
Transplantation: Biomedical And Ethical Concerns Raised By The Cloning And Stem-Cell Debate, written by Gayle E. Wolosehak, the author mentions that although experiments with animal cloning has been moderately successful in the past, “In general, cloning has not been shown to be safe… Most of the cloned animals develop premature aging syndromes with neurological disorders and shorter life spans”. Therefore human cloning would have similar results. Besides the complications of cloning there are the ethical and moral problems with “a subclass of human beings (or perhaps just “subhumans”) who would not have choices about whether they wanted to give up their organs for transplantation or not” (Woloschak). However there have been attempts at manufacturing human organs separately. As it turns out, trying to create a complex organ such as a liver, heart, or kidney is more complicated than it sounds. Organs usually have more than one cell type that allow it to grow and properly function. Xiaohong Wang, the author of the article, Intelligent Freeform Manufacturing Of Complex Organs, mentions that “A complex organ rely upon the organ’s constituent cell types, soluble biological components, extracellular matrices (ECMs), and overall organization. Cell cell, cell matrix, and cell signal interactions are essential for the morphogenesis and functional differentiation of most cells/tissues/organs” (Wang). Such complex organs cannot be simply grown in a petri dish. As of 2012, researchers created a machine that uses a technique called four-nozzle low-temperature deposition manufacturing (FLDM) to create complex organs such as a liver. This machine and technique has been able to achieve manufacturing of complex organs by controlling many of the elements needed to be successful. Such as “(i) hierarchical organization of multiple population of cells and growth factor gradient changes in a more intricate physiological geometry; (ii) simultaneous deposition of one scaffold material, one parenchymal cell, and a vascular system with two main cell types in a more elegant native tissuespecific phenotype; (iii) computer
21 to attack the new organ, causing the organ to fail and eventually die. In the early 2000’s, there was a discussion concerning human cloning for tissue transplantation purposes. In the article,
Stem Cell Research is not some mysterious and evil field of science bent on conducting dark experiments for the greater good. The scientists take what is left over, being thrown away, or donated in an attempt to help save lives. If scientists focused their efforts into Stem Cell Research, current problems such as diseases and the lack of organ donors for patients could be fixed. They could reduce the number of people dying from cardiovascular diseases. They could heal a person’s injured spinal cord. And the wait for a matching organ donor for a patient would no longer be a problem. This is why I believe that Stem Cell Research should become more practiced field of research.
22 definition of fluid paths and macro/microstructures in a more patientspecific manner; and (iv) spatial distribution of multitissue boundaries and fluorescent biomarkers in a more controllable pattern” (Wang). The hopes in furthering this research is that they will develop a technique that will allow for manufactured or cloned organs to be used for clinical purposes as a fast, easy, and more reliable way than our current organ donor system.
One main issue that surrounds and hinders the advancement of stem cell research is that in many areas of the research, the experiments require the use of embryonic stem cells, which can only be obtained from embryos. In nearly every case when the stem cells are obtained, the embryo does not survive. This is where the controversy of stem cell research is centered; the fact that it is considered nearly the same as abortion. However in my research I discovered that this is not entirely true. As was stated in an earlier paragraph, embryos are only obtained from the excess eggs used for vitro fertilization. The fertilized eggs that are not used for implantation, will normally be discarded and destroyed (Robertson). Instead of simply discarding the embryos, researchers take the valuable stem cells. These scientists are “not… creating embryos solely for research” (Robertson), they are simply not allowing these embryos that would normally have been thrown away to go to waste.
"Stem Cell Basics." National Institutes of Health. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 17 June 2015. Web. 28 Apr. 2016 Wang, Xiaohong. "Intelligent Freeform Manufacturing Of Complex Organs." Artificial Organs 36.11 (2012): 951 961. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Wolosehak, Gayle E. "Transplantation: Biomedical And Ethical Concerns Raised By The Cloning And Stem-Cell Debate." Zygon: Journal Of Religion & Science 38.3 (2003): 699. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Apr. 2016.
Robertson, John A. "Embryo Stem Cell Research: Ten Years Of Controversy." Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38.2 (2010): 191-203. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
23 Works Cited
Hansson, E. M., and U. Lendahl. "Regenerative Medicine For The Treatment Of Heart Disease." Journal Of Internal Medicine 273.3 (2013): 235-245. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Okano, Hideyuki, et al. "Neural Stem Cells And Regeneration Of Injured Spinal Cord." Kidney International 68.5 (2005): 1927-1931. Academic Search Premier. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Sheng, Calvin C., Zhou Li, and Hao Jijun. "Current Stem Cell Delivery Methods For Myocardial Repair." Biomed Research International (2013): 1-15. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Confined to be Fat A wise Cree Indian Proverb proclaims, "Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish caught will we realize we cannot eat money." Our world has been heavily polluted while natural resources dwindle away all because of society's need for more. Going back hundreds of years, the spiritual souls of the Native Americans knew the importance of mother earth's delicate balance and treasured/valued everything that was given to them by "her". They respected mother earth along with her creatures and had battled for many, many years against the people who did not hesitate to tear her down for personal and financial gain. Defeated by the white man, they are now suffering and face many inevitable hardships. Because of the white settlers' greed to dominate land, the health of the Native Americans has declined severely as they fought to survive by adapting to their change of diet and environment brought on from their confinement to reservations.Formany generations, before the white settlers arrived and tainted the Native American diet, early Natives ate natural foods that they hunted and gathered from the land. According to David C. King, author of First People: An Illustrated History of American Indians, as these indigenous people evolved, farming developed as early as 8000 BCE. This provided them with stability and a chance to leave behind their nomadic lifestyle and live in settled villages. A steady supply of food also meant that they could support a growing population. Corn became the main staple of food among many Native societies. They often planted this alongside beans and squash because the beans could grow up the cornstalk, and the squash kept the soil moist and cool. The trio became known as the "three
24 Rocio Marquez ENG 102
25 sisters." Other foods harvested were wild grains, chilies, onions and beans, all high in fiber/carbohydrates and low in fat (Teufel). Yet, some groups never developed agriculture, but because of where each group lived geographically, they made do with their surroundings in the most practical way. For instance, the Great Plain Indians, such as the Sioux and Comanche, led a nomadic lifestyle by following the buffalo, dependent on it for food and tools needed for everyday life. The Plateau Indians lived near river valleys where they had access to an abundance of salmon. While life among the Great Basin was harsh compared to other areas, despite its minimal resources, the Natives there survived by using special sticks to dig at the ground to unearth roots, snakes and insects. They also hunted antelope and on occasion had fish. For the Pacific Northwest Indians, even though they had never known cultivation, they did not go hungry due to an ample supply of salmon, halibut, seals, whales and shellfish. Indeed the Native societies had everything they needed from mother earth, but once contact with the white settlers occurred, their healthy, natural way of eating and living would forever be destroyed. As the whites seized Native American land and resources, they forced the indigenous people into relocation/confinement where Natives' stomachs were introduced to the white settlers' food in an attempt to stave off hunger. According to Nutrient Health Associations In The Historic and Contemporary Diets of Southwest Native Americans, during this time they ate whatever they could to survive: rats, cactus fruits, birds, roots, prairie dogs, locusts and the new addition of military rations. These rations consisted of sugar, bacon, potatoes, flour, baking powder, coffee, lard and tea. The Natives made what they could with these ingredients, coming up with the creation of fry bread, (a whopping 335 calories per serving). Later, federally recognized tribes were allowed to go back to their land, but to their disappointment, found their once nutrient rich soil and wild resources depleted by the white ranchers (Teufel). Buffalo became scarce, slaughtered to make way for railroad tracks and to weaken the Native societies that depended on the animal for sustenance. Some were
Then, in 1830, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, which placed the Native societies on lands deemed unworthy to the whites called reservations (King). The environmental changes combined with reservation settlement caused starvation among the Native Americans for periods of time.
Jean A. Keller, a professor of American Indian Studies at Palomar College and author of the article When Native Foods Disappeared, reported that the Native children that were sent to boarding schools in an attempt to assimilate them into the white culture, also experienced starvation and malnutrition deficiencies due to a shortage of fresh food available from the school farm and ingesting low quality food commodities. To further add to their growing unhealthy lifestyle, once these children graduated, they had conformed to their new diet and taught their families the dietary habits learned at school. Because many of the Natives were unable to access traditional foods and suffered from malnutrition, by the 1970s, the government provided them with subsidized food assistance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These foods were highly processed, laden with high amounts of fat, sodium and sugar. Some of these items included flour, rice, fruit juices, canned vegetables that were high in sodium, canned potted meats, powdered milk, sugary canned fruits, lard, butter, macaroni and sugar. As their traditional diet/style of living was slipping into the past, only to be substituted by "imprisonment" and government handouts of nutrient devoid food substances, Natives were becoming overweight and soon plagued with health issues never before seen among their culture.With their freedom overpowered, confinement to reservations have interrupted the natural way of Native life, resulting in a sedentary lifestyle and activating their "thrifty" gene to take over. In the article, The Geneticization of Aboriginal Diabetes and Obesity: Adding Another Scene to the Story of the Thrifty Gene, geneticist James V. Neel, came up with the thrifty gene theory in 1962. He believed that indigenous groups contained a "thrifty" gene that helped them preserve body fat in order to survive
26 hunted for sport and their valuable hides, leaving the carcasses behind to rot, wasting precious meat.
27 long periods of famine, yet in a world dominated by "Westernization", these hunter/gatherers were overcome by obesity due to theirrapid nutritional decline and lifestyle changes. Before Euro-American contact, these indigenous people spent a great amount of energy hunting, gathering, and processing wild and domesticated foods to consume. Since then, their physical activity has diminished considerably as processed foods are made more accessible. Some scientists evenchanged theiropinion from genetics to epigenetics, which includes the effects of physical and social environments combined with genetics (Tiedt, Brown 24). Nicolette Teufel, a professor at University of Arizona and Chair of the Family and Child Health Section of the Health Promotion Sciences Division, has worked with Native Americancommunities in the Southeast since the mid-1970's. Duringone of her conversations about food with an elderly Native American man, he said, "Indians should eat while they can. Tomorrow there may be no food." She believes this mindset among many Natives stems from their past events of having to adapt to a long history of food insecurity. Overeating, poor diet and lack of exercise has lead to many serious health illnesses. Some chronic diseases that plague the Native communities are type II diabetes, cirrhosis of the liver and cancer of the gallbladder, cervix and stomach. In fact, the Southwest Native Americans have the highest diabetes rate in the world. Sentenced to a life in a world of confinement and boundaries, isolated from the "outside" world, living/growing up on reservations not only has set up Native Americans for a life of health problems, but also financial hardship. In 2014, Emma Woolf had written an article called If You're Fat You've Only Got Yourself To Blame, which focused on her arguments of common knowledge and self control, yet even though I'm sure everyone does posses nutritional common knowledge, there are hurdles too great to overcome that could hinder a life of self improvement let alone reach optimal health. Diabetes and obesity issues among the Native people are currently at an all time high because those still living on reservations are more likely to live in poverty, forcing them to rely on government food assistance and choose
28 inexpensive junk foods over pricier nutritious foods. The poverty issues among reservations can be traced back to 1887 when President Grover Cleveland signed the Dawes Severalty Act into law. Reservation land which was communal property was divided up and given to individuals that were the head of the families to live and farm on. After 25 years, if they did not succeed at farming, the land would be taken back by the government to sell to white settlers. Because the land set aside for reservations was usually dry and depleted, it was extremely difficult to grow crops let alone have anyone to sell produce to since reservations were located in remote areas. It took only 12 years for the 138 million acres of landholdings to dwindle to 78 million, a massive loss of Indian land. During this time they were also not allowed to make a living by selling artwork, fish or game. Furthermore, the Natives that held job responsibilities such as medicine man, teacher or spiritual leader, were replaced by white, Christian, government officials (ushistory.org). The Native Americans were left jobless, an unfortunate trend that extends to this day. According to Wikipedia, "The history of the reservation system has resulted in concentrated poverty. Regardless of urbanicity, areas of concentrated poverty tend to have higher crime rates, underperforming schools, poor housing, poor health conditions, limited private services, and few job opportunities." For the few jobs that are available among reservations today, many of the tribal members do not have the qualifications and training to successfully carry out the job tasks required. They face the same problems with the city jobs that are located near reservations and are often discriminated against as a reservation Native. This is due to the school systems on the reservations. The standards here are very low compared to the education systems in urban cities. Of the adults living on the reservation, about half of them attained a high school diploma. The lowest goes to the Gila River Reservation from Arizona; only one third have graduated. Poor education results in unemployment, which in turn effects poverty levels. Thirty-one percent of Natives living on reservation live in poverty (Tiedt, Brown 25). Housing is often overcrowded with families supporting other family members that are homeless. Many homes do not
29 have adequate plumbing, access to telephone landlines or a vehicle for transportation. Without the money to be able to afford these amenities, tribal members rely heavily on government assistance such as Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), food stamp programs and government food distributions, also known as "commodities." With little money and many mouths to feed, tribal members usually opt to purchase inexpensive, processed foods that have a long shelf life. While government assistance doesn't reduce poverty, it does help these families get by. Trapped from the beginnings of reservation confinement, it seems the Native Americans will always struggle and have to rely on the people who banished them there in the first place. As a whole, the Native Americans of today are not solely at fault for their poor health. These individuals have had their lives turned upside down, stripped of their traditional beliefs and forced to live in a "box" that has predisposed them to a life of isolation, poverty, helplessness, obesity and health complications. It is a tragedy that these once strong, independent warriors will continue to battle with these issues for generations to come.
Works Cited Brown, Lori A., and Jane A. Tiedt. "Allostatic Load: The Relationship Between Chronic Stress and Diabetes in Native Americans.” Journal of Theory Construction & Testing 18.1 (2014): 22 27. Academic Search Premier. Web. 13 April 2016. Keller, Jean A. "When Native Foods Were Left Behind." News From Native California 15.3 (Spring 2002): 22. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 May 2016. King, David C. First People: An Illustrated History of American Indians. New York: DK Publishing, 2008. Print.
Poudrier, Jennifer. "The Geneticization of Aboriginal Diabetes and Obesity: Adding Another Scene to the Story of the Thrifty Gene." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 44.2 (May 2007): 237-261. Academic Search Premier. Web. 7 May 2016
"Reservation Poverty." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia Foundation, Inc. 18 April 2016. Teufel,Web.
Woolf, Emma. "If You're Fat You've Only Got Yourself To Blame." The Daily Beast. The Daily Beast, 15 April 2014. Web. 30 May 2016.
30
Nicolette I. "Nutrient-health associations in the historic and contemporary diets of Southwest Native Americans." Journal of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine 6.2 (1996): 179. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 April 2016.
U.S. History Pre-Columbian to The New Millennium. ushistory.org., 2014. Web. 7 May 2016.
Although palm oil harvesting carries immense economic benefits, the environmental and ecological destruction, and human rights abuses occurring within the palm oil industry should lead the Indonesian and Malaysian governments to place a moratorium on oil palm cultivation. Indisputably, the palm oil industry has played an integral role in the globalization of Indonesia’s economy. According to a recent report by World Growth, For the last decade, palm oil has been Indonesia’s most significant agricultural export. In 2008, Indonesia exported over $14.5 billion in palm oil related products. The Indonesian palm oil industry has experienced significant growth in recent years with approximately 1.3
The Repercussions of Oil Palm Cultivation in Southeast Asia With international trade revolutionizing the world's economic atmosphere, the economies of many underdeveloped nations are experiencing rapid growth in their gross domestic product. In many cases, this expeditious growth is being fueled at the expense of the nation’s ecology, environment, and inhabitants. Nowhere is this trend more pronounced than in the burgeoning economies of Indonesia and Malaysia. The tropical climate of these southeast Asian nations creates an ideal environment for the cultivation of elais, commonly referred to as the oil palm (Carlson and Curran). Upon the palm’s maturation, its fleshy fruits are harvested in order to extract the valuable oil within. Subsequently, the oil is refined and sold by agricultural conglomerates to corporations across the globe. Once sold, the newly refined palm oil is manufactured into a variety of household products ranging from shampoo to candy to lipstick (Michaelson). When combined, Indonesia and Malaysia account for nearly ninety percent of all palm oil produced throughout the world (Levin).
31 Samuel EnglishCohodas102
a result of the large area needed to cultivate oil palms, most palm oil plantations are constructed in the rural areas of Indonesia and Malaysia. These rural regions, often stricken by severe poverty, supply much of the labor force needed to harvest and process the fruits of the oil palm. Unlike the urban cities of Malaysia and Indonesia, economic opportunity in the rural regions of these two states is severely limited. However, the palm oil industry has supplied rural laborers with a steady income and increased economic mobility. This increased mobility is especially prevalent among the small land holders who sell their reapings directly to the agricultural conglomerates (World Growth). Furthermore, the infrastructure of many rural villages has been
The palm oil industry is responsible for the employment of millions of Indonesians and Malaysians. According to Joshua Levin of the World Wildlife Foundation, “In Malaysia, the palm oil sector employs 590000 direct workers (including many laborers imported from Indonesia}, and 35% of production derives from small [land] holders. In Indonesia, 3.7 million people are engaged in the palm oil industry […] with 45% of production [coming] from small [land] holders.” With nearly four million citizens employed between the two nations, it is clear that palm oil harvesting is a vital cog in the microeconomic engines of Indonesia and Malaysia. Ostensibly, as worldwide demand for palm oil escalates, additional plantations will need to be constructed, and laborers hired, to keep pace with internationalFurthermore,demand.as
32 million hectare of new area dedicated to plantations since 2005. [..] This substantial expansion is due to higher returns driven by stronger [global] demand. World Growth’s report reveals just how significant the palm oil industry is to Indonesia’s economy.
With total palm oil exports reaching nearly $15 billion, and global demand continuing to surge, the palm oil industry will play a vital role in Indonesia's future economic prosperity. On the macro level, the significance of oil palm cultivation is clear, but much of the wealth generated by the industry also trickles down to the impoverished, rural regions of Indonesia and Malaysia.
33 improved as a result of nearby oil palm plantations. Clearly, the palm oil industry has improved the quality of life among hundreds of thousands of rural citizens throughout Malaysia and Indonesia. Despite the fact that a government imposed moratorium on oil palm cultivation would cripple the economies of many rural villages, the ecological and environmental destruction wrought by palm oil harvesting make the moratorium a necessary tradeoff.
The deforestation techniques implemented by palm oil companies to clear land for plantations is releasing substantial amounts of carbon into the earth’s atmosphere. According to Dr. Kimberly Carlson, a professor of agroecosystems at the University of Hawaii, Forest and peatland conversion to plantation agriculture may be a substantial source of greenhouse gas emission from land cover change. [And] from 1990 to 2010, oil palm area increased 600%. Over 90% of this development occurred in Sumatra and Indonesian Borneo. […] As a result of the extensive deforestation,[Indonesia’s] annual greenhouse gas emissions […] are sourced predominantly from land cover/land use change. As the international demand for palm oil continues to escalate, Indonesia’s finite forests and peatlands are being cleared for additional oil palm plantations. Forests, and especially peatlands, harbor significant amounts of carbon (Carlson). When the land is cleared, usually by controlled fires, the stored carbon is emitted into the atmosphere contributing significantly to global climate change. On the other hand, some people contend that the recently imposed environmental standards agreed to by some of the major palm oil conglomerates will lessen the environmental and ecological impact of oil palm cultivation. As Joshua Levin writes, the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil was created in order address the environmental and ecological concerns stemming from oil palm cultivation. The RSPO and its member corporations have implemented certain methods for sustainable oil palm cultivation. These methods include cleaner agricultural practices, environmental risk assessments, and additional labeling on consumer goods. Levin notes, that since its founding,
34 RSPO certified palm oil now represents a significant share of the market. But, while the RSPO members seems to be improving their agricultural practices, their motives are not purely altruistic. As Dr. Biruté Galdikas, one of the foremost experts on orangutan conservation writes, while members of the RSPO may only produce sustainable palm oil, often 90% of the palm oil they sell is purchased from third-party producers allowing corporations to bypass the RSPO standards. In other words, under the guise of sustainability, RSPO members are knowingly skirting their own selfimposed standards for the sake of economic gain. Worse yet, consumers will be purposely misled to believe that the products they purchase contain sustainable palm oil. Despite the minimal sustainability standards, rainforests will continue to be converted to plantations, and wild animals will be the primary victims. Due to land clearing for oil palm plantations, the Bornean and Sumatran orangutan are being critically threatened. According to Dr. Erik Meijaard, a professor of environmental science at Queensland University, and Dr. Douglas Sheil, a professor of forest ecology at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences, The main impact of oil palm on orangutans is habitat loss. [...] Orangutans are primarily arboreal creatures […] [And] as long as oil palm does not offer a food resource and forest fragments within the oil palm [plantation] are small, degraded, and few, it is doubtful that an oil palm [plantation] can sustain a viable resident orangutan population in the long-term (605-606). Since orangutans are arboreal primates, they require large amounts of raised forest lands in order to survive. And as oil palm plantations continue to encroach upon the limited hectares of forests, orangutans are forced to migrate to other regions as they can not adequately survive among the oil palm plantations. But with demand for palm oil growing, it is inevitable that the palm oil conglomerates and small land holders will penetrate further into the remaining orangutan habitat,
35 leaving nothing but ecological destruction in their wake. Although the exact implications of this further deforestation are unclear, it stands to reason that the remaining orangutan population will be decimated. Without a strict moratorium on oil palm cultivation, one of man's biological brethren will soon be pushed to the brink of extinction. Similarly, the Sumatran tiger is being critically endangered by the encroachment of oil palm plantations. As the Greenpeace report “License to Kill” states, “palm oil alone was responsible for 15% of the loss of tiger habitat, and the vast majority of the forest cleared [was] in identified oil palm concessions [within] Sumatra during 2009-2011.” As with the orangutan, the Sumatran tiger requires large areas of rainforest to survive. With oil palm plantations expanding rapidly, the already fragile tiger population is being put under immense pressure. Furthermore, as forests are raised, Sumatran tigers are forced to hunt in areas with human inhabitants. This can lead to dangerous human-tiger interactions. According to the report “License to Kill”, “Between 1998 and 2011, 638 human-tiger conflicts were recorded in Sumatra. In which tigers killed 72 people, [..] these conflicts resulted in the death of 59 tigers-a significant loss considering that only an estimated 400 Sumatran tigers remain in the wild today.” In the past, human-tiger interactions would have been an anomaly. But since the dawn of the twenty first century, ever-expanding oil palm plantations have forced the Sumatran tiger to forage outside of its habitat. Upon leaving its habitat, the Sumatran tiger is significantly more susceptible to a fatal interaction with humans. Even worse, with so few remaining tigers in the Indonesian wild, each tiger fatality decreases the Sumatran population by nearly half a percent. Additionally, the fewer tigers there are in the wild, the less offspring the tigers will spawn, creating a negative feedback reaction among the future tiger population. Not only does palm oil harvesting generate ecological destruction, but it carries a human cost as well.
36
Carlson, Kimberly M., and Lisa M. Curran. "Committed Carbon Emissions, Deforestation, and Community Land Conversion from Oil Palm Plantation Expansion in West Kalimantan,
Yet, the modern-day government of Malaysia permits these child migrants to labor in oil palm plantations on behalf of private corporations. While these palm oil conglomerates earn billions of dollars in profits, child laborers are denied societal norms, such as healthcare. A state-enforced moratorium on oil palm cultivation would free these vulnerable migrants from the grasp of avaricious corporations. As the economies of Indonesia and Malaysia continue to benefit from oil palm cultivation, the ecology, environment, wildlife, and humans of these nations suffer. Considering how valuable the palm oil trade is two these southeast Asian states, severing ties with the industry will be challenging. But a government imposed moratorium on oil palm cultivation is a necessary sacrifice in order to save the environment and its surrounding ecology.
Works Cited
As a result of the Malaysian government's refusal to recognize the stateless migrants within its borders, palm oil conglomerates are able to exploit the vulnerable migrants for their own economic gain. According to Jason Motlagh, an investigative journalist for The Atlantic, tens of thousands of stateless children inhabit Malaysia’s Sabah province. These children, often borne to migrant parents from Indonesia and the Philippines, have no means of verifying their nationalities, and are thus barred from receiving medical care and schooling from the Malaysian government. With limited options, Motlagh reports that these voiceless children are forced to toil in the harsh palm oil plantations for a few dollars a day while agricultural conglomerates reap billion-dollar profits. The belief that human rights be sacrificed for economic gain is a difficult argument to pose.
37 Indonesia." National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. JSTOR, 8 May 2012. Web. 27 Mar. 2016. "Dr. Birutè Galdikas." Interview by Kristina Simona. EcoPostBlog.com. EcoPost, 16 June 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2016.
Levin, Joshua. Profitability and Sustainability of Palm Oil Production. Rep. World WildLife Fund, Mar. 2012. Web. 1 May 2016. “License to Kill.” Greenpeace.org. Greenpeace, Oct. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 201
Meijaard, Erik, and Sheil Douglas. "Oil-Palm Plantations in The Context of Biodiversity Conservation." Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Ed. Simon A. Levin. Second ed. Vol. 5. Amsterdam: Elsevier, Academic, 2013. 600-12. Print. Michaelson, Jay. "The World Runs on Palm Oil, and That Fueling Climate Change." The Daily Beast The Daily Beast, 15 Dec. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2016. Motlagh, Jason. "Palm Oil for the West, Exploitation for Young Workers in Malaysia." The Atlantic Atlantic Media Company, 9 Apr. 2013. Web. 11 Mar. 2016 World Growth. The Economic Benefits of Palm Oil to Indonesia. Rep. World Growth, Feb. 2011. Web.
Colony Collapse Disorder “…is the disappearance of most, if not all, of the adult honey bees in a colony, leaving behind honey and brood but no dead bee bodies” (Kaplan 4). The main cause of CCD has yet to be determined but many researchers have agreed that some of the causes lie within four main categories: parasites, pathogens, environmental stressors and management stressors.
Picornalike viruses affect bees are deadly to them and “…could result in honey bees having reduced abilities to synthesize certain proteins…more vulnerable to…stresses like pesticides, nutrition problems or other pathogens” (Kaplan 6). While these categories are a great stepping stone for us to build a feasible solution to protect the bees, some researchers believe that the main cause of CCD
38 Mana ENG101Yoneuchi
Colony Collapse Disorder and How It Affects You Bees. Bees are incredibly important to our world and they influence a lot of our everyday life whether we think about it or not. Around 80 percent of all worldwide pollination is performed by honey bees. Honey bees are crucial to our every day life considering they supply around 90 percent of the world’s nutrition (Benjamin, Holpuch, Spencer). In October 2006, the United States was faced with increasing numbers of beekeepers reporting major losses of hives, ranging from 30 to 90 percent, in their apiaries with no evident cause ("Impact of CCD on US Agriculture”). This phenomenon is called Colony Collapse Disorder. Many research studies have been conducted in the past decade attempting to unearth what is causing these losses but none of them have found a leading cause; many argue it’s due to pesticides while others are blaming pollution. It is pivotal that we fund more research on Colony Collapse Disorder because without it, our bees will die and it will result in colossal economic loss and ruination of crops.
39 are the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. Neonicotinoid pesticides are a derivative of nicotine and “…work by binding to an incest’s nicotinic receptors in the central nervous system, blocking nerve impulses” (OTT 407). In 2012, a group of beekeepers tried to force the EPA to ban the use of neonicotinoids because they believed that its affects on their bees (OTT 416). “While about 60 percent of the 259 wax and 350 pollen samples did show the presence of at least one systemic pesticide, almost all were found at levels well below what is considered lethal to honey bees” (Kaplan 8). The focus on pesticides alone is counterintuitive to the protection of bees and instead distracts from the problem at hand.
Funding for more productive research for Colony Collapse Disorder is imperative in order to prevent massive economic loss. The impact bees have on our every day lives are often neglected considering people only think of flowers or honey are their primary job but their role goes far beyond honey production. 71 of 100 crop species responsible for providing 90 percent of food worldwide are dependent on bee pollination. This pollination’s worth is estimated $37 billion-$91 billion annually (Benjamin, Holpuch, Spencer). The estimated financial loss, in the United States alone, in the winter of 2006/2007 projected to be around $8 billion-$12 billion on America’s agricultural economy ("Impact of CCD on US Agriculture”). Bees pollinate about one-third of crop species in the United States as well as animal-feed crops such as clover that feed cows. The impact of CCD on crops worldwide not only affects the crops we eat like vegetables and fruit, but also the meat industry. With less feed for cows, that reduces the quality and quantity of beef, which in turn, result in less beef and prices will rise. Domestically grown nuts, fruits and vegetables will rise which will lead to increased imports from countries where CCD doesn’t exist. These overseas imports will add to the already large ($531.5 billion as of 2015) US trade deficit ("How the US Trade Deficit Hurts the Economy"). If we do not find the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder and take necessary
40 actions to reverse its effects on bee populations then the impact on our economy will be detrimental.Although our economy is very important, many ecosystems will collapse without bee pollination. Ecosystems depend on biodiversity to ensure that it’s healthy. When bees pollinate, they typically prefer different species of flowers depending on what species of bee they are. This helps biodiversity, so when one species of bee dies, the other bees aren’t likely to pollinate that type of flower which might result in the endangerment of that plant. Most flowers can’t self pollinate and seeds being blown in the wind isn’t that efficient. Many associate bees with flowers and honey but bees account for so much more. With the demand of food at an all time high, the loss of bees will put the world in jeopardy. “Spread across 800,000 acres, California’s almond orchards typically require 1.6 million domesticated bee colonies to pollinate the flowering trees and produce what has become the state’s largest overseas agricultural export” (Grossman). With so many crop species that, we rely on for both food and economical reasons, are dependent on bee pollination, it is consequential that we discover the main causes of CCD. Other insects that pollinate won’t be able to keep up with the amount of crop species that farmers grow. Without proper funding for Colony Collapse Disorder research, our efforts to protect bee populations will not be enough and the amount of fruit and vegetables we pull in will dwindle. Many will argue that bees should not be a priority when it comes to government spending but as I have illustrated earlier, research in Colony Collapse Disorder is an investment that this nation should take. Last year, the Endangered Species Act provided around $1.6 billion ("President's Proposed Budget”) which some would argue that that’s a very large amount of money but considering the Endangered Species Act encompasses many different departments, it’s very small compared to the $609.3 billion allotted for military spending. Also, most of that $1.6 billion goes toward the Fish and Wildlife Service and it’s unclear if bee conservation fell under that budget.
41
Another argument is that Obama has already proposed a plan to save bees and other pollinators so there is no need to ask for more. Although it’s amazing that Obama has recognized the importance of bees’ role in both the environment and economy, it’s only a strategy that promotes the health of honey bees and other pollinators (Eilperin). It also doesn’t really delve into research on how to fight Colony Collapse Disorder and it shifts its focus on fighting to ban neonicotinoids rather than study on what is killing the bees in the first place. The scientists who believe that neonicotinoids are the absolute, main cause of CCD are also to blame for the hindrance of fighting CCD. I mentioned earlier that pesticides, such as neonicotinoids, are a factor of Colony Collapse Disorder but there isn’t enough evidence to suggest that it’s the main factor. It can be argued that it’s simply a catalyst. Some scientists believe that, they do think pesticides, more specifically ones like neonicotinoids, might play a factor in overall bee health. It can weaken their immune system and when parasites and viruses such as Varroa mites, acute bee paralysis virus and Kashmir bee virus but the EPA believes that there aren’t enough neonicotinoids present to be lethal. Bee populations rose in the past 8 years which many people could argue that it’s not a big problem any more (Ingraham). Although it is great to hear that bee populations are high but these are commercial, honey producing colonies with beekeepers that buy bees online. Bees are vital to our world whether it’s the foods we eat, the biodiversity of different ecosystems, and the foods we buy. Providing scientists with proper funding into research on Colony Collapse Disorder will ensure that none of our efforts to decelerate the affects won’t go to waste.
Although bees are not the only pollinators the world has, many species depend on them to guarantee their survival. Farmers depend on them, consumers depend on high quality fruits, vegetables and beef, so many people depend on things that are pollinated from bees. Scientists are fighting with each other on what is the main cause and it results in half finished “cures” and
Cited
"How the US Trade Deficit Hurts the Economy." About.com Money. N.p., 11 Feb. 2016. Web. 03 May Kaplan,2016.J.Kim.
"Colony Collapse Disorder." Agricultural Research 60.6 (2012): 48. Environment Complete. Web. 2 May 2016.
42 petitions that go nowhere. With the extra funding in Colony Collapse Disorder research, there will be definitive proof if neonicotinoids are the main cause or if there is something that’s infecting the bees with viruses, parasites, pathogens. Either way, it will provide beekeepers and scientists with a blueprint that will allow them to bring bee populations back to where it was around 40 years ago and so that we can prevent it from happening again.Works
"Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go." National Priorities Project. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 May Grossman,2016.Elizabeth.
"Declining Bee Populations Pose A Threat to Global Agriculture." By Elizabeth Grossman: Yale Environment 360. Yale University, 30 Apr. 2013. Web. 12 May 2016. "Impact of CCD on US Agriculture." PBS. PBS, 20 July 2009. Web. 02 May 2016. Ingraham, Christopher. "Call off the Bee-pocalypse." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23 July 2013. Web. 13 May 2016.
Benjamin, Alison, Holpuch Amanda, and Spencer Ruth. "Buzzfeeds: The Effects of Colony Collapse Disorder and Other Bee News." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 30 July 2013. Web. 02 May 2016. Eilperin, Juliet. "How the White House Plans to Help the Humble Bee Maintain Its Buzz." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 19 May 2015. Web. 12 May 2016.
Watanabe, Myrna E. "Colony Collapse Disorder: Many Suspects, No Smoking Gun." Bioscience 58.5 (2008): 384-388. Environment Complete. Web. 2 May 2016.
"President's2016.Proposed Budget Falls Far Short of Funding Needed to Recover Endangered Species." President's Proposed Budget Falls Far Short of Funding Needed to Recover Endangered Species Biological Diversity, 4 Feb. 2015. Web. 12 May 2016. "Save the Bees." Greenpeace USA Save the Bees Comments. Greenpeace, n.d. Web. 02 May 2016.
43 Ott, Kelsey. "Buzzkill: How The Epa's Inaction Is Killing America's Bees." William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review 39.2 (2015): 401-425. Environment Complete. Web. 3 May
"Will We Save the Bees in Time?" About.com Money. N.p., 15 Feb. 2016. Web. 03 May 2016.
The headlines read the same each and every time they are put out: “Record High Temperatures,” “Soaring Temperatures,” “Endless Drought,” “Record High Heatwaves,” “Massive Glacier Plunges Into the Sea,” etc. It comes as no surprise that on March 28th, 2016, NASA’S Earth Science News Team published an article with the following title: “2016 Arctic sea ice wintertime extent hits another record low.” Every year, the cap of frozen water in the Arctic Ocean and the neighboring seas melts during the spring and summer months, only to regrow in the winter months.
The Urgency of Global Climate Awareness and Action
NASA’s news team reports that this year’s winter maximum was the lowest on record at 5.607 million square miles, which is down from the previous year’s 5.612 million square miles. Nasa records that not only have eleven of the world’s hottest years have occurred since 1998, (with 2015 being the warmest,) but that thirteen of the smallest maximum extents for these ice caps have happened in the last thirteen years. In a world that vacillates between focusing on climate and phasing it from the public perspective altogether, is there still time to do anything about our changingDespiteclimate?the fact that climate change is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, it is still primarily discussed in terms relative to the question of its legitimacy. As a result, this unfortunate discourse also proves true for the discussion regarding the impact of humans on this change. In accordance with NASA and most of the world’s leading scientific organizations, this paper will assume that the scientific consensuses concerning the factuality of climate change and the human acceleration of this change are both correct. In so doing, it stands to reason that the
44 Jonathan Trautman English 102
45 continual questioning of these facts is an insidious squandering of valuable time. This leads one to wonder, “Is it already too late to reverse the effects of climate change?” The attributed stances regarding this particular question are as follows. Chair of the Ecological Society of America, Dr. Robert Goodland attested that it is not too late to reverse the effects of climate change. In order to accept either this claim or it’s diametrically opposed counterpart, one must assume that the ability to reverse the effects of climate change will be yielded through future innovations in science, or through massive cultural reform. Specifically, one who believes that the effects of climate change are yet reversible must be able to demonstrate that we have not yet reached a “point of no return,” or perhaps even support the claim that such a point does not even exist, and they must show that it is indeed possible to reverse the effects of climate change. The late Goodland posited that, “In fact, there is documented potential for agricultural change to bring atmospheric carbon to pre-industrial revolution levels within five years” (7). Conversely, former top climatologist at NASA, Dr. James Hansen heavily implies that it is indeed too late to reverse the effects of climate change. Again, one making this claim would have to assume that climate change is indeed reversible, but must also be able to demonstrate that there is a carbon/pollutant threshold that cannot be returned from once passed, and that we have in fact passed it. Hansen and a number of other scientists are reluctant to say that the point of no return has been passed, but say that it is conceivable that this is the case, and suggest that irreversible damage has been done and would continue to be done, even if carbon emissions were reduced to zero. Furthermore, Hansen “conclude[s] that the 2 ◦C global warming “guardrail”, affirmed in the Copenhagen Accord (2009), does not provide safety, as such warming would likely yield sea level rise of several meters along with numerous other severely disruptive consequences for human society and ecosystems” (20121). Seeing as to how we have already risen a degree Celsius in temperature, this would put the Earth either on or just past the threshold of no return. Finally, there is a more nuanced position that identifies a failing in the public perception of
46 climate change. This final stance argues that there is not (within reason) any evidence to support the hypothesis that the effects of climate change can be reversed at all. This position takes into account the fact that we do not have technology that can circumvent the conservation of matter, and therefore must assert that we are stuck with what effects we garner from our pollution, even well beyond an eventuality when we stop polluting. For instance, an MIT study published conducted by Doctors John Sterman and Linda Sweeney states that, “GHG emissions are now about twice the rate of GHG removal from the atmosphere. GHG concentrations will therefore continue to rise even if emissions fall, stabilizing only when emissions equal removal” (213). It crucial to note that the study does not say that greenhouse gases and their effects will be reversed, but that they will only be stabilized. Though, rather than acting as a disincentive toward the reduction of carbon emission and other pollutants, this final position magnifies the urgency with which we must work toward reaching zero-emission societies. The position of Doctors John Sternman and Linda Sweeney is the most reasonable and ethical to hold. There is no evidence-based reasoning that can lead one to believe that humans presently have the power to beneficially alter global weather patterns -whether we have induced them or not- and to suggest otherwise would simply be dishonest. However, it is not too late to stop the trend that we have created, as the climate has not yet been raised beyond levels that would be consistent with reasonable living conditions. If it is correct to assume that the effects of climate change cannot be reversed, then it is imperative that humans process their actions beginning from this intellectual stance, but if the effects of climate change can, in fact, be reversed, then action in accordance with this position would only yield the best possible outcome from which a reversal could begin. And the solutions that one would come to from this view are multiplicitous: an increase in Bill Nye-caliber efforts to raise awareness and to reduce climate change denial, imposing a carbon
47 fee or tax, and increased advocacy on the behalf of the informed are all potential, and necessary, solutions for our impending climate crisis. However, the first impediment toward popularizing and further enacting any of the aforementioned solutions is the public disagreement regarding the scientific consensus on climate change. The Pew Research Center reports that “only 50% of U.S. adults believe that climate change is mostly man-made, compared to 87% of scientists (Deryugina & Schurchkov 1). Furthermore, in investigating the disparity between the scientific consensus on climate change and the public perception of this scientific consensus, Doctors Tatyana Deryugina and Olga Shurchkov found that, respondents in the control group believe[d] that only 72% of scientists agree that global warming is a process that is already underway (different from 95%, the percentage of scientists agreeing with the same statement, at p < 0.001), that only 69% of scientists believ e that human activities are accelerating global warming (different from 88% at p < 0.001), and that 32% of scientists would say that there is no need for immediate policy decisions (different from 9% at p < 0.001). (6)
Ironically, this egregious public failure to recognize even the scientific consensus on global warming, (or to recognize climate change for themselves,) is tacitly supported or engendered by educators and scientists. A national survey of science teachers found that “30 percent of the 1,500 teachers surveyed said they emphasized that recent global warming "is likely due to natural causes,"
Considering the fact that the participants in Dr. Deryugina and Olga Shurchkov’s experiment were a far more educated sample than a group of average U.S. citizens would typically be, it would seem that the prospect of public motivation toward more effective and reasonable climate policy is not a hopeful one. It is most likely that meaningful addendums and revisions to climate policy can only be made with a significant public acknowledgement of climate change, and it would seem that the public currently has trouble even understanding that scientists recognize climate change as a threat.
48 while 12 percent said they did not emphasize human causes. Half of that 12 percent said they did not discuss any causes at all” (Schwartz A19). As was discussed previously, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly toward climate change being primarily man-made, and the failure of educators to emphasize the causes of any phenomenon is simply a failure to facilitate understanding. This poor state of climate education is not always stemmed from the teachers, however. Bertha Vazquez, a Miami teacher who teaches about accurate climate science says. “Every year, I get the email from a father who says, 'This is garbage,' and why am I teaching this?” (Schwartz A19). This is an unfortunate example of a cyclical problem within an uneducated population. In Bertha Vazquez’ case, a man attempts to dissuade her from teaching her class about climate change.
Additionally, Dr. Larry Luton, professor of government at Eastern Washington University, asserts that “Scientists seem not to be aware of how their belief in such dichotomies as facts/values, science/politics, and technical/political undermines their credibility and their impact” (145).
Essentially, Luton sheds light on the fact that scientists (such as those on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are shirking their political responsibilities by holding the belief that science is purely objective, value-free, and politically neutral. When one considers the misinformation that is being propagated by science educators, as well as the reluctance of scientists to actively engage in political disputes, one can make sense of the error in the public perception of the consensus regarding climate change. It is also clear that the political apathy among scientists and the ignorance among some educators that explain this error, qualify as impediments to progress as well. It stands, however, that no matter the failure of the public at large to perceive climate change and the scientific consensus thereof, and despite the failure of some educators and scientists to improve this errant perspective, climate change remains an increasingly imminent threat. By running several simulations of an Earth System Model in a Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,
49 environmental physicist, Dr. Thomas L Frölicher recently found that “The GFDL ESM2M model illustratively shows that stopping carbon emissions at 2°C global warming would mean a peak warming of 2.5°C on multicentennial timescales, and an irreversible warming of 2.1°C on multimillennial time-scales” (1). This means that even in a scenario where carbon emission are completely zeroed out by the time the Earth has been heated by 2 degrees Celsius, the Earth would continue to warm for years after the cessation of carbon emissions, and a portion of that warming would be irreversible. Frölicher concludes in saying, “These new results have important implications for carbon emissions budgets. In fact, allowable carbon emissions for any future (peak) global warming limit, such as the 2°C target, may be significantly lower than previously thought” (7). Former NASA climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen has found similarly foreboding climate projections in his research and likewise concludes that “…the 2◦C global warming “guardrail”, affirmed in the Copenhagen Accord (2009), does not provide safety, as such warming would likely yield sea level rise of several meters along with numerous other severely disruptive consequences for human society and ecosystems” (Hansen et. al. 20121). The findings of these experts clearly demonstrate the need for immediate and radical action in the face of climate change.
The challenges that are posed by climate change are particularly difficult to contest, because they go unseen by most of the population. Societal ignorance, irresponsible or uniformed educators, politically-impotent scientists, and the looming threat of climate related consequences, are all hindrances toward progress, but these problems are not yet insurmountable. Those who are educated should not despair and wallow in the thought that nothing can be done. They should instead consider supporting or conceiving of proposed solutions such as those that follow.
In direct regard to the threats that climate change poses, as long as fossil fuels are among the cheapest source of energy carbon emissions will continue to rise. Dr. James Hansen says, “Although a carbon fee is the sine qua non for phasing out emissions, the urgency of slowing emissions also
Taxing something is effectively an attempt on the behalf of a government to discourage the consumption of a certain good or service, so if a carbon fee were to be imposed, there would have to be energy sources to supplement, and eventually replace, fuels like coal and gasoline, in a way that is profitable. Voters need to start supporting measures that will allow for the optimization of solar, nuclear, and wind power, because that is the only way that these energies might become economically incentivized. As Penny Wong states, “a global response to climate change remains defined as a contest between economic development and the environment” (276). As soon as alternative forms of energy can be optimized so as to be made lucrative, the process of effectively combating climate change can begin.
50 implies other needs including widespread technical cooperation in clean energy technologies” (20121). Hansen believes that advocacy for a fee or a tax on carbon-based fuels is essential in an effort to “begin to phase down fossil fuel CO2 emissions rapidly” (20121). Consequently, one of the most effective ways for fossil fuels to be minimalized is for those who are educated to lobby for such a fee.Such an imposition will necessitate economically incentivizing alternative forms of energy.
In order for such policy changes to be made, scientists are going to have to function in a much more political role. Dr. Larry Luton asserts that “in postmodern conditions of post-normal science, neither the public nor public administrators are likely to be satisfied with [scientist’s] assurances and their claims of being above the political fray” (158). Scientists, (such as those on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) simply need to become much more politically oriented. Unfortunately, facts do not always speak for themselves, and sometimes facts need people
Australian politician Penny Wong says, “Credible research, modeling, and scenario planning are needed to demonstrate how investments in renewable energy, low-emissions technologies, and energy efficiency improvements can reduce emissions while maintaining economic growth” (276).
51 to speak for them. In order to do this, some scientists will need to stop framing their work as valuefree, but this will allow them to more directly influence policy in an educated manner. Most importantly of all, it is crucial that people continue being educated. More specifically,
Experts like Dr. James Hansen have given admonishments like the following: “It is also clear that
evolutionary biologist and policy director for the Science Education Center Josh Rosenau states “the evolving nature of climate science means continuing teacher education is essential” because, “If you're teaching climate change the way you learned it in the 1990s," when the role of human activities and burning of fossil fuels was less clear, "you're kind of teaching climate change denialism" (Schwartz A19). It is doubtful that most educators who fail to teach climate science well are neglecting to do so with malicious intent. It is probable that in most cases they too are ignorant to the facts. The continued education of teachers and students on the subject of climate change is crucial for the possibility of progress in the realm of climate policy.
It is important to remember that the public perception of the scientific consensus on climate change is terribly inaccurate, and as a result, so too is the public perception of climate change and the threats that it poses. Perhaps more importantly, one must be continually aware of the fact that policy responses such as a carbon-based fuel tax are urgently needed, because the estimation that a two degree Celsius rise in global temperature can no longer be considered a safe threshold. Finally, one must recall that education is of paramount importance in making policy changes possible. Only through education on the subject of climate change can people become concerned enough to enact change.. Climate change should be of concern to every human, because we all need the planet to maintain suitable living conditions. Most importantly, a societal transition from discussions of climate change’s relevance, to discussions of its imminent repercussions, may be the only thing that can keep our societies from taking carbon/pollutant emissions beyond the point of sustainability.
Works Cited: Deryugina, Tatyana, and Shurchkov Olga. “The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change.” PLoS ONE 11.4 (2016): 1-14. Print. Frölicher, Thomas L., and David J. Paynter. “Extending the Relationship Between Global Warming and Cumulative Carbon Emissions to Multi-Millennial Timescales.” Environmental Research Letters 10.7 (2015): 075002. Print. Hansen, James (et al.) “Ice Melt, Sea Level Rise and Superstorms: Evidence from Paleoclimate Data, Climate Modeling, and Modern Observations that 2◦C Global Warming is Highly Dangerous.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions 15.4 (2016): 20061-20121. Print. Luton, Larry S. " Climate Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Evolving Dynamics of a Belief in Political Neutrality.” Administrative Theory & Praxis 37.3 (2015): 14461. Print. Schwartz, John. "Science Teachers Lag on Climate Change." New York Times February 12, 2016, Late Edition (East Coast): A:19. ProQuest. Web. 18 Apr. 2016. Wong, Penny. “From Copenhagen to Paris: Climate Change and the Limits of Rationality, Multilateralism, and Leadership.” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 21.2 (2015): 268-280. Print.
continued high emissions are likely to lock-in continued global energy imbalance, ocean warming, ice sheet disintegration, and large sea level rise, which young people and future generations would not be able to avoid” (20122). If humans wish to avoid the increasingly near consequences of losing our coastal cities to ocean rise, toxifying the air and water, and negatively impacting other species as well, then the time to act and to warn others of the danger is now.
52
It’s a modern world for the men and women of 2015, but maybe not as modern as some might expect. There should be phones built into our teeth at this point. “EyePhones,” as Futurama had depicted in an episode back in 2010. There should be hover boards and hover cars and a wardrobe that depicts a metallic and neon mashup from the 70’s and 80’s. But there’s not. Maybe our modern culture stepped back into time, back to our primitive days making cave drawings. Maybe the entire world became Egyptian overnight, and we’ve started using pictures again to communicate like the hieroglyphs did. While it could be argued that the addition of emoji to our written language could be considered childish, lacking imagination or could possibly dumb down our communication skills, the addition of emoji has helped language by allowing us to communicate more effectively across cultures, helped to start break down barriers between cultures, and even allowed us to understand and be more accepting of certain mental health issues.
In the past 5-8 years, the world has started using “emojis” in a majority of our virtual conversations with each other. Emoji is derived from the Japanese culture where “e” means picture, and “moji” means character (“Emoji”). Put them together and you have a picture character, or an “emoji.” And those are just what they say they are, a character in picture form. Emoji’s were created in the 90’s as a way for Japans more advanced technological culture to send a 12 x12 pixel image to someones beeper. A message became more personalized and more human. Instead of just saying, “I love you,” you could now say “I love you ♥,” instantly adding a touch of emotion and connection.
53 Tessa EnglishSadow101
Modern Hieroglyphs - Cross Cultural Communication
According to his article, “[e]moji, the visual system of communication that is incredibly popular online, is Britain’s fastest-growing language according to Professor Vyv Evans, a linguist at Bangor University.” Even though it’s become the “fastest growing language,” Jones goes on to say “that Emoji is not ‘progress’ by any definition. It is plainly a step back.” Jones states he prefers to “stick with the language of Shakespeare.” If this is a step back, perhaps to the Egyptian times, maybe we should take a history lesson to see how advanced the Egyptians truly were. They used hieroglyphics which were pictures, to communicate. The Egyptians were a very advanced civilization for their time. They had astronomy, medicine, pyramids, and even blown glass. Trying to argue that we’ve taken “a step back” isn’t quite a valid argument considering that the world’s previous cultures were very advanced for their time. While this may be the case for some and considered a step back, others argue that the use of emojis just doesn't allow us to be creative or put a lot of support behind us as individuals with brains. Maybe people have clearly forgotten the use of acronyms in the past. The use of emojis is a very large step up from acronyms. Who could decipher that “LLAP” (NetLingo) would mean “live long and prosper?” Instead with emojis, now you could send someone a Spock’s hand from Star Trek [ ]. This is a very creative use of emojis. However, Mary Mann, a writer for medium.com, discusses the idea that sending emojis makes us dumber. In her article, “Everybody Smiley Poops,” she states, “[e]mojis are weird. And cute. And teensy. My mom uses them but calls them ‘those phone pictures.’” She goes on to cite President Obama later in her article saying, “President Obama referred to them in a speech as ‘little emoji or whatever those things are.’” Mann seems to feel foolish when she sends just emojis to a friend or family member. She goes on to say on some days
54 Some people in the world have tried to argue that we’ve stepped back in our written forms since the addition of emojis. Jonathan Jones, an art and design writer for TheGuardian.com talks about this in his article, “Emoji is dragging us back to the dark ages - and all we can do is smile.”
Phoenix Tso wrote an article on this event on jezebel.com,“How Emojis Could Determine Your Place on the Autism Spectrum.” Tso quoted Belleveau in saying, If you chose the red-faced emoji (which, according to Siri, is pouting) to answer that hypothetical question, you would not land as highly on the spectrum as someone who crafted a detailed reply using the pig, the knife, and the broken heart. Your ability to recognize the meaning of each emoji and sufficiently understand the nuances to string them together determines your place on the scale.
55 her and her sister communicate purely in emojis, due to the fact her sister is a new mom and it’s difficult to send a full sentence sometimes. Sometimes sending the glass of wine emoji is easier to ask to go out for a drink then sending an entire text about it. Mann goes on to say that “emojis might lead us to ‘stop using [full English] words altogether.’” Imagining a world where we stop using words altogether is rather difficult. There are plenty of highly opinionated people on the internet who would be very upset if they could only use emojis and not a written word. The Yelp! critics would be out of luck. On the other side of the spectrum, emojis have allowed some development in the ability to figuring out where someone could land on the Autism/Asperger’s scale. In 2013, artist Genevieve Belleveau had a performance art piece in the Emoji Art Show in Manhattan (Tso). Her piece, aptly named “Emoji Autism Facial Recognition Therapy,” had an Emoji Recognition Chart with 30 different emojis on it. She asked attendees to use the emojis presented to them as a way to explain a hypothetical situation to someone such as a breakup.
According to Tso, “Belleveau explained how someone who gives a blunt, literal answer to her query might show signs of Asperger's versus someone whose answer is more nuanced.” While a persons answer doesn't 100% mean that they may be Autistic or have Asperger’s, it could allow them to
56 better understand how those disorders may work, which could decrease any misunderstanding and stigmas that surround people who suffer from autism/Asperger’s. Along with breaking down stigmas, the addition of over 200 emojis in the keyboard of our devices has the ability to transcend cultural separations around the world, allowing us to communicate more effectively. A smile is universal. Emoji has over 10 different ways to send a smile, depending on if you feel like laughing when you smile, or even smirk. In 2014, Unicode, the company that created the modern emoji, made racially different emojis. The addition of diverse emojis has aided in allowing people of color to no longer defaulting to a “white experience.” It also allows caucasians to not have to default to a yellow person. Now if someone wants to send a super tan Santa, they can. As well as the addition of same-sex couple and family emojis. In “The upside of emoji,” an article written by Julie Kliegman on theweek.com, she said, “in 2012, same-sex couples joined [the emoji keyboard.]” Diversity exists in the world around us, we should be able to depict a same-sex couple via emoji if needed. Emojis have the ability to break down cultural differences even between the hearing world and deaf world. Speaking with their hands, the deaf culture has spent years petitioning to get the “I love you,” hand sign in the emoji keyboard, in all skin colors. While not an actually an ASL sign, the “rock on” hand was added recently [ ]. ASL signs should be added to the emoji keyboard. This could help bridge the gap between deaf and hearing people. More hearing people would be exposed to signs on a regular basis and in turn start understanding them and could potentially stop staring at deaf people conversing in ASL in public. Kliegman goes on to quote Mary Mann’s essay in saying, “‘the flip side is that in this potential future [of using emojis in common language] the entire human race is communicating with each other,’ she wrote. ‘Could it really be that the great promise of the World Wide Web has been achieved by the likes of unamused face, blowing kiss face, and smiley
57
poop?’” All around the world, people are using emojis to share stories and communicate, all while not learning the language of another culture. Along with the ability to break down barriers, emojis are allowing us to possibly communicate about things that trouble us, without verbally or even writing out what’s going on. There is a nonprofit out there that is dedicated to helping troubled kids communicate more effectively with the adult world. BRIS is a Swedish organization that designed an app with the idea of breaking language barriers for children to get help from domestic violence situations and away from being a victim of abuse. In Kliegman’s article on theweek.com she writes, The organization's app offers emoji that depict a black eye, verbal abuse, and suicidal thoughts, among other harmful scenarios. The idea is that children and teenagers who need help might feel more comfortable sending an adult a picture instead of trying to find the words to explain something painful, a BRIS spokeswoman told PBS. The emoji are also meant to help children break language barriers. Calling a suicide help line, or even an abuse phone number can be difficult. Trying to ask someone you don’t know for help is painful and hard. Telling an adult that someone else is hurting you is even harder. With this app, the ability for a teen or child to send something as simple as an emoji of a black eye could potentially help save their lives, their livelihood, and get help quicker. Emojis have changed our world in many ways, but it’s difficult to see the negative sides when there are so many ways emojis can help us. While it may be so much easier for someone to send a quick message with emojis, they have a slim chance of replacing the “Shakespearean” language. We may still use phrases such as “with bated breath,” or “there’s method in my madness,” but most of the Shakespearean tongue is long since dead. Maybe in a few more centuries emojis will change, or even cease to exist. But for now, emojis have helped us break down barriers and communicate more openly and effectively across
58 borders and languages. They’ve allowed us to make pregnancy announcements, they’ve been added to pop culture as halloween costumes, and they’ve even taken place as body art in tattoos. Emojis are here to stay, at least for hopefully another 30+ Worksyears.Cited "Emoji." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 02 Dec. 2015. Jones, Johnathan. "Emoji Is Dragging Us Back to the Dark Ages and All We Can Do Is Smile." The Guardian. N.p., 27 May 2015. Web. 2 Dec. 2015. Kliegman, Julie. "The Upside of Emoji." The Upside of Emoji. N.p., 01 Oct. 2015. Web. 02 Dec. 2015. Mann, Mary. "Everybody Smiley Poops - Matter." Medium. N.p., 05 Aug. 2014. Web. 02 Dec. 2015. "NetLingo List of Chat Acronyms & Text Shorthand." Netlingo. N.p., n.d. Web. 2 Dec. 2015. Tso, Phoenix. "How Emojis Could Determine Your Place on the Autism Spectrum." Jezebel. N.p., 26 Dec. 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2015
JaredReviewers:Aragona, Ph.D. Matthew Bloom, M.A.
59
Two Waters Review was founded in order to showcase the exceptional work our students produce in first-year composition. To qualify for publication, an essay must be formal, eloquent, researchbased, and consistent with a standard citation style. The only changes made by the reviewers were with the purpose of formatting the text for publication.
