Of Food and Zoos...

Nickolas Kosmenko

Reading Summaries

The following paragraphs summarize sections 9, 29, and 41 from the book Environmental Studies, Third Edition (Easton 2009).

Section 9 – Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems

As the human population has grown, so has its effect on Earth’s systems.  Human-induced changes in the landscape, biogeochemical cycles, and species of Earth have resulted in climate change and reduced biodiversity on a global scale, occurring in both terrestrial and marine environments.  This section summarizes many of the ways in which humans have altered the Earth including increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, diverting and altering waterways, changing the phosphorus and nitrogen cycles, and increasing sulfur emissions and distribution of toxic metals.  As well, humans have also facilitated many biotic alterations including increased rates of species extinction and increased prevalence of invasive species.

As the author points out, all of these changes are due to a growing human population with an increasing need for development.  To mitigate effects, the author suggests three measures: 1) reduce how much humanity alters the earth, 2) conduct more research to gain a better understanding of Earth’s systems, and 3) maintain responsibility for managing global resources.

Section 29 – Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems

From 1981 until 2002, a study titled the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial has compared soybean and corn production from three different farming methods: conventional cropping, organic animal-based cropping in which grains are grown for animal feed, and organic legume-based cropping.  Regarding the results of the study, for the first five years, the conventional system averaged significantly more corn production than the organic systems, but after this period corn production was not significantly different between the three methods.  Soybean yields were also similar among the three plots.  Further, the organic plots had higher rates of water percolation, meaning greater groundwater recharge and less runoff.  There was also more soil water, carbon, and nitrogen in the organic fields.  For corn production, significantly less fossil fuels were used in the organic systems as compared to the conventional system, but for soybeans, fossil fuel use was similar.  Due to higher prices for organic produce, net returns on organic farming were greater than those for conventional farming.  These results indicate it may be beneficial to apply more organic strategies to conventional farming systems.

Section 41 – Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation

This passage describes how the views regarding sustaining biodiversity differ between today’s multinational corporations and women following traditional agricultural methods in Third World communities.  The former value nature only because it provides economic gain.  Due to this economic gain, corporations strive to produce monocultures to increase crop yields and, thus, profits.  However, this practice only leads to a loss of biodiversity, which counters any efforts made to achieve its preservation.  On the other hand, women in Third World nations understand that sustainability of livelihoods depends on sustaining biodiversity, and that an ecosystem profits more from a diverse landscape than fields of monoculture crops.  These women have an intrinsic value for nature which is lacking among multinational corporations, as demonstrated by corporations’ desire for profits above all else.  Such a desire has lead to seed patents and genetic alteration of plants to disallow biological attributes needed for reproduction, thus requiring farmers to buy new seeds annually.  In conclusion, even though women’s role in agriculture is overlooked, it seems as though it is essential to maintaining global biodiversity.

Activity

For my activity, I chose to watch a presentation by Eric Sanderson on a project he and others had been working on for ten years: the Mannahatta Project.  Using Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, Eric and his team took a base-map of the New York City area and removed all the buildings, streets, and other man-made structures.  Next, using knowledge of interconnections between plant species, animal species, the area’s ancient Native tribes, soil, geologic, hydrologic, and topographic data, the team mapped where certain tribes, plants, and animal species would have been before European colonization, approximately 400 years ago.  The presentation concludes with a look at what Eric believes New York City could look like in another 400 years, with vegetation growing on the roofs of buildings, and swamps and forests interspersed throughout the city.

Reflections

Activity Reflection

In 2009 I took a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) course and quickly learned many of the amazing things that could be done with this technology.  For instance, one particularly fascinating piece of information I learned was that GIS can be used to predict where certain Aboriginal people would have lived based on proximity to favourable animal habitat (i.e. hunting areas).  Since I was already somewhat knowledgeable in this area, I wasn’t surprised to learn that mapping a theoretical pre-colonization New York City was possible.  However, I was amazed to learn that it was actually done.  Tremendous amounts of information are needed to accurately predict where tree and animal species would have been located 400 years ago, as described in the video.  As well, considering all interconnections between living and nonliving factors would take a very long time.  Indeed, this is an amazing feat, and a very interesting one for anyone with background knowledge of GIS technology. 

Along with being fascinating, the Mannahatta Project is also eye-opening.  The map of New York City 400 years ago reminds me of the area which I am from, where there are miles and miles of swamps, forests, and lakes.  If the New York area could be colonized and developed into the massive city it now is, perhaps the same could happen to my area.  This is indeed a scary thought, and one I do not like to entertain.

Eric’s “future New York City” seems very feasible.  Even though I would prefer to see New York City in the state it was 400 years ago, the alternative presented by Eric is still more favourable than the city’s present state.  The planet would be placed under much less stress if urban dwellers and wilderness could coexist.  In Eric’s New York, urbanites would have to give up some of the commodities they currently enjoy, but the city would still have many of the developments it has today… and besides, perhaps by giving up some comforts, people would realize greater happiness can be achieved from simpler pursuits.

Class Reflection # 1

One of the reflections I wanted to make is related to my personal “food system”.  In class we have done much discussion on the topic of food and its origin.  These discussions have been of very great interest to me, and I have probably benefited from these lectures more than any of the other lectures I have had in my university tenure thus far.  Before entering Environmental Issues class, I had considered where my food came from to only a small extent – an extent not sufficiently great to facilitate personal change.  However, our class lectures opened my eyes to the world of industrial farming.  Large-scale agriculture and associated processing seem to be flawed in many ways, from unethical treatment of animals to production of food deficient in nutrients to unsanitary working conditions.  These issues have become of greater concern to me as of late, which is part of the reason why I chose to forgo eating domesticated meat for one month for my Environmental Action assignment.  However, my one month ended on February 16^th, and I still have not eaten livestock.  Also, I have begun to buy more organic foods more often.  I think my food habits have been substantially changed by this class.

The greatest benefit I derive from my current diet is the knowledge that I am not supporting the unethical treatment of animals.  As well, I am relying more on my own skills and hard work to fulfill my dietary needs (if you call fishing and hunting hard work).  Further, by fishing and hunting instead of going to the grocery store, I maintain a connection with nature that many people don’t have.  It separates me from so many others, and makes me feel unique and independent.

One of the aspects associated with my current diet that I do not like is the difficulty to move away from consuming non-organic dairy products.  Dairy products are a great source of both protein and calcium, and ceasing to consume non-organic varieties may be hazardous to my health and financial situation, as many organic dairy products are very expensive.  I suppose this expense is due to greater labour needed to produce organic products.  However, a reduction in price would probably result in more people buying organic produce, which may help alleviate the financial stresses associated with increased labour.  I hope this price reduction happens in the near future.  Society knows it should move toward more sustainable approaches, so why not make it easier to do so by reducing prices of organic produce?

In regards to taste and nutrition, my diet seems to fulfill all sensory and nutritional needs.  The moose I have been eating tastes a great deal better than beef, and it is also very lean and high in protein.  Fish I harvest can provide many essential oils to keep my brain functioning and my skin and hair healthy, and since I am from an area that is not very polluted, I don’t have to worry about bioaccumulation of heavy metals, mercury, and other toxins.  However, once my moose stores run out, and once I am back in school after summer break, it will be very difficult to meet my protein needs.  Since school begins in early September, it overlaps many different hunting seasons in my area.

Cost is another matter that must be taken into account when examining my diet.  To harvest the moose I am currently in the process of consuming, I needed to purchase a firearm, ammunition, a hunting licence, gas for vehicles, and supplies for the hunting trip.  As well, my parents bought another freezer, since my mom became sick of my monopoly over our other one.  All these expenses add up, but considering the quality of the hunting experience as well as the quality of the meat harvested, I would say the benefits were well worth the costs.

Class Reflection #2

For my second reflection, I wanted to comment on zoos.  Zoos can be a great way to educate the public, as many people cannot afford to go to distant lands to learn about exotic animals.  This reduction in public ignorance can lead to more people desiring careers related to conservation, more donations to wildlife organizations, and a greater respect for the natural world.  However, is caging an animal ethical?  Perhaps it is, if the goal is rehabilitation prior to release back into the wild.  Although, many zoos are concerned more about profits and the enjoyment of visitors than animal welfare.  In this instance, caging animals is not ethical, no matter the size or species of animal.  Many of the animals in zoos are forced into pens much smaller than their home territory, as we have learned in class.  They experience a world very different from that which their wild counterparts are free to roam.  As well, I believe animals aren’t something we should cage and then make people pay to look at.  They should be allowed to be free, as nature intended.

There was once a time when I enjoyed visiting zoos, back when I was a little shorter and much more ignorant.  Now I would rather experience the wild instead of looking at caged animals.  I derive more personal benefit from going canoeing, hunting, or fishing in areas where entire days can pass without me seeing another human.  An animal in its natural environment can teach you more about its species than can an animal influenced by concrete and steel.  However, if everyone where to venture to unsettled lands and experience biology the way I personally prefer, added stress would produce negative effects on the land and its species.

Perhaps in the future regular zoos will be replaced by virtual zoos in which people learn from holograms and images of animals.  These virtual zoos would not have the same feel as seeing real animals, but we must realize that as the human population grows, we must take more care in regards to limiting environmental impact.  Perhaps virtual zoos would provide necessary education until we can live at peace with the environment.  Besides, people seem to really like television, so maybe they would not mind this change very much.

Nick