Recently, in the forum for Primate Conservation at my Alma Mater, someone posted a link to this report at the Adam Smith Institute.
I've read it, and a few furious replies came up. Mostly attacking it as a non-reviewed paper by a market research institute, and the admittedly sweeping statements behind it.
But I realised that all of the conservationist replies are missing the point. Often, there is no sense of reality of the situations, except that primates (or biodiversity) is there and they must be saved. I suspect it is something about being in Borneo too.
So I posted a reply and it follows here:
"Hi all,
My turn! I read the article, some very sweeping bits, for example in page 2, it says : Far from pristine rainforest being ripped out in favour of commercial crops, the majority of the country's virgin rainforest remains unspoilt and intact.".
But at the end of it all, they are fighting their corner, we are fighting ours. I don't think we should expect many economists to see our point. Not yet anyway. Our views are biodiversity-biased, their views are economics-biased, simply because we lack the training or background on each other's side. If we ran the economy, I'm sure we'd do a lot worse than what is going on now, and the economy is already very messed up. Ditto for if they were in charge of biodiversity.I think on our part as biodiversity conservationists/specialists, we should not be narrow-biodiversity scientists. Go around to the second-hand bookshop (tonnes of those in Southeast Asia - especially all you who are hanging around in my patch :P) pick out a textbook on economics; read about commodities, and about value of land - cropland, forestland; read about what drives the demand; find out why or how demand for crops hop around from one to another; look around to how land-use policies are or should be laid out, from the economist's perspective. I think a lot of times we tend to be dismissive of their views and they of conservationists.
He did make some valid points. Like mentioned by Marie, we do tend make things overblown, but that's how the way the world works. Threaten a double-dip recession and the government would bust their nuts trying to prevent it and end up with record economic growth instead. They do it, we do it. His point is valid, but I think where it differs from us, is that an economy might actually end up with record growth within the year, but we will not see record biodiversity growth within the same period of time. For the economy, it's "Yay, we did it!". For forests and biodiversity, it's "I don't see a difference, are you sure?".
A big sticking point, which he does point out, it that the VAST majority of oil palm forests is in Peninsular Malaysia, which only comprises 40% of all total land area in Malaysia. Also, there are no orangutans! Conservation should do something to address that point, because it is a good point, it is valid and we've all been silent about it, at least publicly.
I think the palm oil and forest issue is extremely tricky and complication. Firstly it does affect one of the main financial thrusts of a country run by a democracy which will fail if the government tries to change policies. The Malaysian electorate is FAR less educated and the power of the indigenous populations is too great for the government to deviate from current economic policies. I'm sure some of you will know about that having lived in Malaysia for a while.
A big big big problem is that conservationists are now increasingly viewed as anti-agriculture. The big point for economists and governments in this region who are trying to profit from the "green" movement is that palm oil are used in food, and that conservationists are worsening a global food crisis. Australia is having massive problems because of a drought that has been around for more than a decade in much of its agricultural area and then now it gets a drought which floods the fields AND the coal mines which produce theirs and many countries' power supply. All their freshwater there are increasingly turning saline. You may not feel it in Europe, but in this part of the world, all the way down to Pakistan, Australia feeds itself, Southeast Asia, and South Asia. China is facing a failed crop last year, this year, and probably the next year too. The pressures will begin to shift to Southeast Asia.
We cannot say, we are just targetting palm oil in Borneo. Economists will say, look, petroleum is expensive, the world's most populous country is running out of water, the 2 of the world's most populous countries in the world may face a food crunch from failed crops in China and possible failure in Australia, the world's most populous Muslim country in the world with a history of eruption into street violence may face in stability in the face of rising costs. Orangutans in Borneo VS palm oil/agriculture, not a difficult choice. Maybe the positions of the forests are much more unstable that we think. Also, the demand for oil palm IS increasing worldwide. The 2011 budget of Malaysia is 212 billion Malaysian Ringgit. Palm oil alone contributed 53 billion to gross national income, the value of this commodity to them is immense. Conservationists point to declining prices of palm oil, such as here: http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0127-economy_deforestation.html, but this is no longer valid. In March 2008, palm oil reached the height of $1,146,86 per metric ton. Then in declined to $522.19 in January 2009. There were many articles online about possibility of less oil palm plantations. The decline did not stay. Let me give you the trend over the last few months. By July 2010, it was up to $774.50, in August, $865.23, October $935.22. In November, it broke the psychologically important $1000 barrier, reaching $1059.01. Within the next two months, by January 2011 (this year!) it has reached $1,238.57. A record price. Today (23rd Feb) it eased off a bit, but is trading at $1107. There is another point: for Malaysia to sustain the industry, it only needs to sell the oil at around $400. So they were still quite profitable in the lean years, and they are getting close to three times cost price. What's not to like for the economist?
Yes, we know there are orangutans in the forests of Borneo. Many many many more other flora and fauna, we know about how the forests are the lungs of the world, how they contribute to the water cycle and flooding. That is why I am against the clearing of forests for palm oil. But the argument by conservationists about the bit of science here and there being wrong, and selling the orangutan like people will fall down dead the next minute, it doesn't work. Not here. Maybe in Europe and the US. Over here, getting out of the village and getting rich first is the priority. There is a country to run, mouths to feed, subsidies to give out for basic necessities. I think we have to change tack, we might also have to be less hardline.
Sorry this is very long, hopefully I've given it a different spin!"
Hope some readers will chime in with non-spam posts!
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Friday, June 25, 2010
Be fair, many things are anthropogenic, but many things are NOT.
Recently, many low lying places in Singapore have been flooded when 120% of an entire month’s rainfall fell in approximately three hours. After the first flooding, PUB did a check on their pipes and decided that some choked culverts may have been the cause. So PUB held their hands up and said, “Ok maybe we didn’t do enough”. Kudos to them for that. Some people (including myself) have wondered if the Marina Barrage has anything to do with it. Personally, I have a little suspicion, but hey, I’m not an engineer, and someone should explain that.
Many people have then jumped on to the back of the government, with comments like “Let’s see Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim take responsibility.” He did, through PUB. What more could he have done? Resign? Over two days of freakish rainstorms? Let’s not forget Dr. Ibrahim’s background. He’s Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at NUS, got his PhD in Cornell and did his post-doc at Stanford. Look in the Cabinet - is there a better to do that job? No. So give the man a break and let him do his job. Demanding this and that at this point in time does not help. We are all victims of freakish weather.
Then there are others that go, “Look, earthquakes, flood, drought. It’s Man’s fault. Mother Nature is paying back”. Firstly, earthquakes are the result of tectonic plate movement. NOTHING to do with anthropogenic action. Secondly, what’s the point with gloating? Happy that you might be right? Well then do something! And I mean do something more constructive than point your finger at the Minister, who quite rightly made most of our drainages culverts so they are not above ground and smelling to the high heavens. Besides, the drainages are choked partly because people are LITTERING. Is that Dr. Ibrahim’s fault too? How many people actually tell off people who litter or pick up and dispose of litter that “missed” bin?
At the end of the day, this period of flooding is the result of two freakish rainstorms. No amount of planning short of turning Singapore in Venice could have prevented the floodings, choked culverts or not. Is it the result of anthropogenic climate change? Maybe. But let’s all not forget that in Nature, unpredictable things happen. In 1703, hurricane strength winds for two weeks killed nearly 30,000 people in Britain and destroyed much of the Royal Navy. Even with modern technology and meticulous planning, could this have been prevented? Of course not. So let’s take things in perspective. Do what we can in reducing anthropogenic impacts on the environment, but when freak storms occur, we should also keep in mind that we may not have been the cause of the weather, but we still have caused the flooding by selfish daily behavior.
Many people have then jumped on to the back of the government, with comments like “Let’s see Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim take responsibility.” He did, through PUB. What more could he have done? Resign? Over two days of freakish rainstorms? Let’s not forget Dr. Ibrahim’s background. He’s Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at NUS, got his PhD in Cornell and did his post-doc at Stanford. Look in the Cabinet - is there a better to do that job? No. So give the man a break and let him do his job. Demanding this and that at this point in time does not help. We are all victims of freakish weather.
Then there are others that go, “Look, earthquakes, flood, drought. It’s Man’s fault. Mother Nature is paying back”. Firstly, earthquakes are the result of tectonic plate movement. NOTHING to do with anthropogenic action. Secondly, what’s the point with gloating? Happy that you might be right? Well then do something! And I mean do something more constructive than point your finger at the Minister, who quite rightly made most of our drainages culverts so they are not above ground and smelling to the high heavens. Besides, the drainages are choked partly because people are LITTERING. Is that Dr. Ibrahim’s fault too? How many people actually tell off people who litter or pick up and dispose of litter that “missed” bin?
At the end of the day, this period of flooding is the result of two freakish rainstorms. No amount of planning short of turning Singapore in Venice could have prevented the floodings, choked culverts or not. Is it the result of anthropogenic climate change? Maybe. But let’s all not forget that in Nature, unpredictable things happen. In 1703, hurricane strength winds for two weeks killed nearly 30,000 people in Britain and destroyed much of the Royal Navy. Even with modern technology and meticulous planning, could this have been prevented? Of course not. So let’s take things in perspective. Do what we can in reducing anthropogenic impacts on the environment, but when freak storms occur, we should also keep in mind that we may not have been the cause of the weather, but we still have caused the flooding by selfish daily behavior.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Guest Writer: Solar Energy, Pros and Cons
I've not updated this for so long, but Barbara has kindly written an article on solar energy (especially in the light of the messy oil spills here in Singapore and in the Gulf of Mexico) which I'm going to stick below, so here goes!
Here’s a simple method to learn the way solar panels work
What is solar energy ?
Solar energy is radiant energy that's produced by the sun. Each day the sun radiates, or sends out, a huge volume of energy. The sun radiates more energy in a single second than people have used since the beginning of time!
The energy of the Sun derives from within the sun itself. Like other stars, the sun is really a big ball of gases––mostly hydrogen and helium atoms.
The hydrogen atoms in the sun’s core combine to create helium and generate energy in a process called nuclear fusion.
During nuclear fusion, the sun’s extremely high pressure and temperature cause hydrogen atoms to come apart and their nuclei (the central cores of the atoms) to fuse or combine. Four hydrogen nuclei fuse to become one helium atom. However the helium atom contains less mass compared to four hydrogen atoms that fused. Some matter is lost during nuclear fusion. The lost matter is emitted into space as radiant energy.
It takes many years for the energy in the sun’s core to make its way to the solar surface, and somewhat over eight minutes to travel the 93 million miles to earth. The solar energy travels to the earth at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light.
Only a small percentage of the energy radiated by the sun into space strikes our planet, one part in two billion. Yet this amount of energy is enormous. Every single day enough energy strikes the united states to provide the nation’s energy needs for one and a half years!
Where does all of this energy go?
About 15 percent of the sun’s energy which hits the planet earth is reflected back into space. Another 30 percent is used to evaporate water, which, lifted into the atmosphere, produces rainfall. Solar power also is absorbed by plants, the land, and the oceans. The rest could be employed to supply our energy needs.
Who invented solar power ?
People have harnessed solar power for hundreds of years. Since the 7th century B.C., people used simple magnifying glasses to concentrate the light of the sun into beams so hot they'd cause wood to catch fire. Over a century ago in France, a scientist used heat from a solar collector to create steam to drive a steam engine. In the beginning of this century, scientists and engineers began researching ways to use solar energy in earnest. One important development was a remarkably efficient solar boiler introduced by Charles Greeley Abbott, an american astrophysicist, in 1936.
The solar water heater gained popularity at this time in Florida, California, and the Southwest. The industry started in the early 1920s and was in full swing prior to World War II. This growth lasted before mid-1950s when low-cost gas became the primary fuel for heating American homes.
People and world governments remained largely indifferent to the possibilities of solar technology until the oil shortages of the1970s. Today, people use solar technology to heat buildings and water and to generate electricity.
How we use solar power today ?
Solar power is employed in several different ways, of course. There's two simple forms of solar power:
* Solar thermal energy collects the sun's warmth through 1 of 2 means: in water or in an anti-freeze (glycol) mixture.
* Solar photovoltaic energy converts the sun's radiation to usable electricity.
Listed here are the five most practical and popular techniques solar energy is employed:
1. Small portable solar photovoltaic systems. We have seen these used everywhere, from calculators to solar garden products. Portable units can be used for everything from RV appliances while single panel systems can be used traffic signs and remote monitoring stations.
2. Solar pool heating. Running water in direct circulation systems via a solar collector is an extremely practical solution to heat water for your pool or hot tub.
3. Thermal glycol energy to heat water. In this method (indirect circulation), glycol is heated by sunshine and the heat is then transferred to water in a warm water tank. This method of collecting the sun's energy is more practical now than in the past. In areas as far north as Edmonton, Alberta, solar thermal to heat water is economically sound. It can pay for itself in 36 months or less.
4. Integrating solar photovoltaic energy into your home or office power. In most parts on the planet, solar photovoltaics is an economically feasible method to supplement the power of your property. In Japan, photovoltaics are competitive with other kinds of power. In america alone, new incentive programs make this form of solar power ever more viable in many states. An increasingly popular and practical method of integrating solar energy into the power of your home or business is through the use of building integrated solar photovoltaics.
5. Large independent photovoltaic systems. For those who have enough sun power at your site, you may be able to go off grid. It's also possible to integrate or hybridize your solar energy system with wind power or other forms of sustainable energy to stay 'off the grid.'
How can Photovoltaic panels work ?
Silicon is mounted beneath non-reflective glass to create photovoltaic panels. These panels collect photons from the sun, converting them into DC electrical energy. The energy created then flows into an inverter. The inverter transforms the power into basic voltage and AC electrical power.
Solar cells are prepared with particular materials called semiconductors for example silicon, which is presently the most generally used. When light hits the Photovoltaic cell, a particular share of it is absorbed inside the semiconductor material. This means that the energy of the absorbed light is given to the semiconductor.
The energy unfastens the electrons, permitting them to run freely. Solar power cells also have more than one electric fields that act to compel electrons unfastened by light absorption to flow in a specific direction. This flow of electrons is a current, and by introducing metal links on the top and bottom of the -Photovoltaic cell, the current can be drawn to use it externally.
Do you know the advantages and disadvantages of solar energy ?
Solar Pro Arguments
- Heating our homes with oil or natural gas or using electricity from power plants running with fossil fuels is a reason for global warming and climate disruption. Solar power, on the contrary, is clean and environmentally-friendly.
- Solar hot-water heaters require little maintenance, and their initial investment can be recovered in just a relatively small amount of time.
- Solar hot-water heaters can work in almost any climate, even in very cold ones. You just have to choose the right system for your climate: drainback, thermosyphon, batch-ICS, etc.
- Maintenance costs of solar powered systems are minimal and the warranties large.
- Financial incentives (USA, Canada, European states…) can aid in eliminating the cost of the first investment in solar technologies. The U.S. government, as an example, offers tax credits for solar systems certified by by the SRCC (Solar Rating and Certification Corporation), which amount to 30 percent of the investment (2009-2016 period).
Solar Cons Arguments
- The initial investment in Solar Hot water heaters or in Solar PV Electric Systems is greater than that required by conventional electric and gas heaters systems.
- The payback period of solar PV-electric systems is high, as well as those of solar space heating or solar cooling (only the solar domestic hot water heating payback is short or relatively short).
- Solar water heating do not support a direct combination with radiators (including baseboard ones).
- Some air conditioning (solar space heating and the solar cooling systems) are very pricey, and rather untested technologies: solar air conditioning isn't, till now, a really economical option.
- The efficiency of solar powered systems is rather influenced by sunlight resources. It's in colder climates, where heating or electricity needs are higher, that the efficiency is smaller.
About me - Barbara Young writes on solar power kits in her personal hobby website 12voltsolarpanels.net. Her work is devoted to helping people save energy using solar powered energy to eliminate CO2 emissions and energy dependency.
Here’s a simple method to learn the way solar panels work
What is solar energy ?
Solar energy is radiant energy that's produced by the sun. Each day the sun radiates, or sends out, a huge volume of energy. The sun radiates more energy in a single second than people have used since the beginning of time!
The energy of the Sun derives from within the sun itself. Like other stars, the sun is really a big ball of gases––mostly hydrogen and helium atoms.
The hydrogen atoms in the sun’s core combine to create helium and generate energy in a process called nuclear fusion.
During nuclear fusion, the sun’s extremely high pressure and temperature cause hydrogen atoms to come apart and their nuclei (the central cores of the atoms) to fuse or combine. Four hydrogen nuclei fuse to become one helium atom. However the helium atom contains less mass compared to four hydrogen atoms that fused. Some matter is lost during nuclear fusion. The lost matter is emitted into space as radiant energy.
It takes many years for the energy in the sun’s core to make its way to the solar surface, and somewhat over eight minutes to travel the 93 million miles to earth. The solar energy travels to the earth at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light.
Only a small percentage of the energy radiated by the sun into space strikes our planet, one part in two billion. Yet this amount of energy is enormous. Every single day enough energy strikes the united states to provide the nation’s energy needs for one and a half years!
Where does all of this energy go?
About 15 percent of the sun’s energy which hits the planet earth is reflected back into space. Another 30 percent is used to evaporate water, which, lifted into the atmosphere, produces rainfall. Solar power also is absorbed by plants, the land, and the oceans. The rest could be employed to supply our energy needs.
Who invented solar power ?
People have harnessed solar power for hundreds of years. Since the 7th century B.C., people used simple magnifying glasses to concentrate the light of the sun into beams so hot they'd cause wood to catch fire. Over a century ago in France, a scientist used heat from a solar collector to create steam to drive a steam engine. In the beginning of this century, scientists and engineers began researching ways to use solar energy in earnest. One important development was a remarkably efficient solar boiler introduced by Charles Greeley Abbott, an american astrophysicist, in 1936.
The solar water heater gained popularity at this time in Florida, California, and the Southwest. The industry started in the early 1920s and was in full swing prior to World War II. This growth lasted before mid-1950s when low-cost gas became the primary fuel for heating American homes.
People and world governments remained largely indifferent to the possibilities of solar technology until the oil shortages of the1970s. Today, people use solar technology to heat buildings and water and to generate electricity.
How we use solar power today ?
Solar power is employed in several different ways, of course. There's two simple forms of solar power:
* Solar thermal energy collects the sun's warmth through 1 of 2 means: in water or in an anti-freeze (glycol) mixture.
* Solar photovoltaic energy converts the sun's radiation to usable electricity.
Listed here are the five most practical and popular techniques solar energy is employed:
1. Small portable solar photovoltaic systems. We have seen these used everywhere, from calculators to solar garden products. Portable units can be used for everything from RV appliances while single panel systems can be used traffic signs and remote monitoring stations.
2. Solar pool heating. Running water in direct circulation systems via a solar collector is an extremely practical solution to heat water for your pool or hot tub.
3. Thermal glycol energy to heat water. In this method (indirect circulation), glycol is heated by sunshine and the heat is then transferred to water in a warm water tank. This method of collecting the sun's energy is more practical now than in the past. In areas as far north as Edmonton, Alberta, solar thermal to heat water is economically sound. It can pay for itself in 36 months or less.
4. Integrating solar photovoltaic energy into your home or office power. In most parts on the planet, solar photovoltaics is an economically feasible method to supplement the power of your property. In Japan, photovoltaics are competitive with other kinds of power. In america alone, new incentive programs make this form of solar power ever more viable in many states. An increasingly popular and practical method of integrating solar energy into the power of your home or business is through the use of building integrated solar photovoltaics.
5. Large independent photovoltaic systems. For those who have enough sun power at your site, you may be able to go off grid. It's also possible to integrate or hybridize your solar energy system with wind power or other forms of sustainable energy to stay 'off the grid.'
How can Photovoltaic panels work ?
Silicon is mounted beneath non-reflective glass to create photovoltaic panels. These panels collect photons from the sun, converting them into DC electrical energy. The energy created then flows into an inverter. The inverter transforms the power into basic voltage and AC electrical power.
Solar cells are prepared with particular materials called semiconductors for example silicon, which is presently the most generally used. When light hits the Photovoltaic cell, a particular share of it is absorbed inside the semiconductor material. This means that the energy of the absorbed light is given to the semiconductor.
The energy unfastens the electrons, permitting them to run freely. Solar power cells also have more than one electric fields that act to compel electrons unfastened by light absorption to flow in a specific direction. This flow of electrons is a current, and by introducing metal links on the top and bottom of the -Photovoltaic cell, the current can be drawn to use it externally.
Do you know the advantages and disadvantages of solar energy ?
Solar Pro Arguments
- Heating our homes with oil or natural gas or using electricity from power plants running with fossil fuels is a reason for global warming and climate disruption. Solar power, on the contrary, is clean and environmentally-friendly.
- Solar hot-water heaters require little maintenance, and their initial investment can be recovered in just a relatively small amount of time.
- Solar hot-water heaters can work in almost any climate, even in very cold ones. You just have to choose the right system for your climate: drainback, thermosyphon, batch-ICS, etc.
- Maintenance costs of solar powered systems are minimal and the warranties large.
- Financial incentives (USA, Canada, European states…) can aid in eliminating the cost of the first investment in solar technologies. The U.S. government, as an example, offers tax credits for solar systems certified by by the SRCC (Solar Rating and Certification Corporation), which amount to 30 percent of the investment (2009-2016 period).
Solar Cons Arguments
- The initial investment in Solar Hot water heaters or in Solar PV Electric Systems is greater than that required by conventional electric and gas heaters systems.
- The payback period of solar PV-electric systems is high, as well as those of solar space heating or solar cooling (only the solar domestic hot water heating payback is short or relatively short).
- Solar water heating do not support a direct combination with radiators (including baseboard ones).
- Some air conditioning (solar space heating and the solar cooling systems) are very pricey, and rather untested technologies: solar air conditioning isn't, till now, a really economical option.
- The efficiency of solar powered systems is rather influenced by sunlight resources. It's in colder climates, where heating or electricity needs are higher, that the efficiency is smaller.
About me - Barbara Young writes on solar power kits in her personal hobby website 12voltsolarpanels.net. Her work is devoted to helping people save energy using solar powered energy to eliminate CO2 emissions and energy dependency.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Biodiversity Education in Singapore (and probably the rest of Southeast Asia)
In many respects education in Singapore is top-notch, especially in Mathematics and most sciences due to a great emphasis on the student mastering the basics of a subject. In recent times however, science has moved rapidly and is quickly becoming a large, interdisciplinary field where the lines between mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology are become very blurred.
This is especially important in biodiversity and conservation. Students are brought up in with the mindset of objectivity and a somewhat mistaken concept of the omission of a "human factor". Our students see science as cold and hard and this extends into the biology students, and the education of our biology students.
Biodiversity studies in the days gone by were relatively more straightforward and less bounded by various factors that we have to consider now. Dr. Terry Erwin fogged a forest to do a species survey. This obviously cannot be done now. Similarly, biodiversity conservation has moved on. Many Singaporean conservation students probably do not know this, but conservation of species was actually a concept started by big game hunters in order to ensure the continued survival of their big game targets. It may sound ironic, but effectively, it is not very different from sustainable fishing. Following the scramble for Africa, where European colonial powers carved up Africa for themselves, they set about establishing game reserves, or national parks for this purpose. This was the start of the so-called "fortress conservation" that we now know that is practiced all over Southeast Asia. Its basic concept is quite clearly stated as in the Wilderness Act of 1964 of the United States which says that "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.". This means man is excluded from any reserves so designated to protect it's "wilderness".
But what does it actually mean to people in practice? One word: Eviction. Local tribes and "natives" are removed from their ancestral lands to fulfill an essentially Western concept of nature. This brings us to another term: nature. What is nature? How do we define nature? We see this term in many "nature blogs" including this one. Raymond Henry Williams a Welsh academic at Cambridge said that it is "perhaps the most complex word in the English language". Rebecca Solnit, prominent writer and cultural historian, said,"One way to guarantee a conversation without a conclusion is to ask a group of people what nature is". Interestingly however, indigenous peoples often have no concept of nature wilderness or biodiversity. Mark Dowie interviewed an Alaskan Yupik scientist and got this reply: "We have no concept of 'wilderness'. What you call 'wildnerness' we call our backyard. To us none of Alaska is wilderness defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act - a place without people. We are deeply insulted by that concept, as we are by the whole idea of 'wilderness designation' that too often excludes native Alaskans from ancestral lands". The nearest approximation in Yupik of "biodiversity" is "food". In Pima (Native Indians of Arizona and Mexico), the nearest approximation for "wilderness" is "health" or "wholeness".
I cannot help but feel that the coldness of the biology that is taught in Singapore is leaving us behind in conservation thought, at the the era of 1964. Conservation biology students have a hardnosed economics vs biodiversity mindset. No doubt that is important. However, anthropology is quickly assuming a role in conservation biology that our students have so far largely failed to take notice. Take for example 'slash-and-burn'. Singaporeans immediately think: haze, forest loss, animals running out of habitat. But how many realise that shifting 'slash-and-burn' or more correctly, swidden agriculture of native peoples actually create mosaics that improve the fire-resistance of the forests, that it reduces erosion rates of standard tilling and ploughing techniques of farming? Now, I am NOT defending the people who caused the haze, those were due to commercial farmers try to clear land quickly to plant cash crops and exhaust the land. We have to make the differentiation between materialist, commercial burning and subsistence, shifting swidden agriculture. Slash-and-burn do NOT always mean the haze, and people should stop calling for it to banned as they are the only livelihoods for some people who actually through doing so, and they enhance and have actually been actively and positively shaping biodiversity for thousands of years.
But we must be careful. We cannot say that we are condemning these people to a primitive life. A lot of times people and governments use this argument, but it is again a perspective of cold, hard numbers. People should be allowed to live their lives as their ancestral culture dictates. Besides, it is always wrong to evict people who have done no wrong except for living primitively - from a Western perspective. Turn the situation on its head. Imagine forest or nomadic cultures one say became militarily and scientifically strong while living in the forest. Would it be right for them to head out to France to pull down the Eiffel Tower or to London tear down city? Obviously not. We view the environment and landscape differently and we cannot assume we are always right.
Coming back to Singapore and biodiversity and conservation education, can the reader see what we are lacking now? I hope you do. If not, I will say it here: anthropology. The current system we have will allow us (although some people will dispute it) to produce good biodiversity scientists coming from a Western perspective. But until the system changes and students have to learn cultures and social perspectives of biodiversity and conservation of indigenous cultures, we will NEVER see a prominent, successful CONSERVATIONIST as it requires a balanced, global perspective. I leave everyone with a speech from Roy Sesana, a G//ana bushman elder from the Kalahari in Botswana which he made when he received the Right Livelihood Award from the Swedish Parliament in 2005 for the courageous fight he put up in trying to tell the world of his people's right to remain in their ancestral land.
"Right Livelihood Award address, Stockholm, December 2005
My name is Roy Sesana; I am a Gana Bushman from the Kalahari in what is now called Botswana. In my language, my name is ëTobee' and our land is ëT//amm'. We have been there longer than any people has been anywhere.
When I was young, I went to work in a mine. I put off my skins and wore clothes. But I went home after a while. Does that make me less Bushman? I don't think so.
I am a leader. When I was a boy we did not need leaders and we lived well. Now we need them because our land is being stolen and we must struggle to survive. It doesn't mean I tell people what to do, it's the other way around: they tell me what I have to do to help them.
I cannot read. You wanted me to write this speech, so my friends helped, but I cannot read words - I'm sorry! But I do know how to read the land and the animals. All our children could. If they didn't, they would have all died long ago.
I know many who can read words and many, like me, who can only read the land. Both are important. We are not backward or less intelligent: we live in exactly the same up-to-date year as you. I was going to say we all live under the same stars, but no, they're different, and there are many more in the Kalahari. The sun and moon are the same.
I grew up a hunter. All our boys and men were hunters. Hunting is going and talking to the animals. You don't steal. You go and ask. You set a trap or go with bow or spear. It can take days. You track the antelope. He knows you are there, he knows he has to give you his strength. But he runs and you have to run. As you run, you become like him. It can last hours and exhaust you both. You talk to him and look into his eyes. And then he knows he must give you his strength so your children can live.
When I first hunted, I was not allowed to eat. Pieces of the steenbok were burnt with some roots and spread on my body. This is how I learned. It's not the same way you learn, but it works well.
The farmer says he is more advanced than the backward hunter, but I don't believe him. His herds give no more food than ours. The antelope are not our slaves, they do not wear bells on their necks and they can run faster than the lazy cow or the herder. We run through life together.
When I wear the antelope horns, it helps me talk to my ancestors and they help me. The ancestors are so important: we would not be alive without them. Everyone knows this in their heart, but some have forgotten. Would any of us be here without our ancestors? I don't think so.
I was trained as a healer. You have to read the plants and the sand. You have to dig the roots and become fit. You put some of the root back for tomorrow, so one day your grandchildren can find it and eat. You learn what the land tells you.
When the old die, we bury them and they become ancestors. When there is sickness, we dance and we talk to them; they speak through my blood. I touch the sick person and can find the illness and heal it.
We are the ancestors of our grandchildren's children. We look after them, just as our ancestors look after us. We aren't here for ourselves. We are here for each other and for the children of our grandchildren.
Why am I here? Because my people love their land, and without it we are dying. Many years ago, the president of Botswana said we could live on our ancestral land forever. We never needed anyone to tell us that. Of course we can live where God created us! But the next president said we must move and began forcing us away.
They said we had to go because of diamonds. Then they said we were killing too many animals: but that's not true. They say many things which aren't true. They said we had to move so the government could develop us. The president says unless we change we will perish like the dodo. I didn't know what a dodo was. But I found out: it was a bird which was wiped out by settlers. The president was right. They are killing us by forcing us off our land. We have been tortured and shot at. They arrested me and beat me.
Thank you for the Right Livelihood Award. It is global recognition of our struggle and will raise our voice throughout the world. When I heard I had won I had just been let out of prison. They say I am a criminal, as I stand here today.
I say what kind of development is it when the people live shorter lives than before? They catch HIV/AIDS. Our children are beaten in school and won't go there. Some become prostitutes. They are not allowed to hunt. They fight because they are bored and get drunk. They are starting to commit suicide. We never saw that before. It hurts to say this. Is this ëdevelopment'?
We are not primitive. We live differently to you, but we do not live exactly like our grandparents did, nor do you. Were your ancestors ëprimitive'? I don't think so. We respect our ancestors. We love our children. This is the same for all people.
We now have to stop the government stealing our land: without it we will die.
If anyone has read a lot of books and thinks I am primitive because I have not read even one, then he should throw away those books and get one which says we are all brothers and sisters under God and we too have a right to live.
That is all. Thank you."
*Note: He is not Christian, he made the speech in native language and this was the best translation in English.
This is especially important in biodiversity and conservation. Students are brought up in with the mindset of objectivity and a somewhat mistaken concept of the omission of a "human factor". Our students see science as cold and hard and this extends into the biology students, and the education of our biology students.
Biodiversity studies in the days gone by were relatively more straightforward and less bounded by various factors that we have to consider now. Dr. Terry Erwin fogged a forest to do a species survey. This obviously cannot be done now. Similarly, biodiversity conservation has moved on. Many Singaporean conservation students probably do not know this, but conservation of species was actually a concept started by big game hunters in order to ensure the continued survival of their big game targets. It may sound ironic, but effectively, it is not very different from sustainable fishing. Following the scramble for Africa, where European colonial powers carved up Africa for themselves, they set about establishing game reserves, or national parks for this purpose. This was the start of the so-called "fortress conservation" that we now know that is practiced all over Southeast Asia. Its basic concept is quite clearly stated as in the Wilderness Act of 1964 of the United States which says that "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.". This means man is excluded from any reserves so designated to protect it's "wilderness".
But what does it actually mean to people in practice? One word: Eviction. Local tribes and "natives" are removed from their ancestral lands to fulfill an essentially Western concept of nature. This brings us to another term: nature. What is nature? How do we define nature? We see this term in many "nature blogs" including this one. Raymond Henry Williams a Welsh academic at Cambridge said that it is "perhaps the most complex word in the English language". Rebecca Solnit, prominent writer and cultural historian, said,"One way to guarantee a conversation without a conclusion is to ask a group of people what nature is". Interestingly however, indigenous peoples often have no concept of nature wilderness or biodiversity. Mark Dowie interviewed an Alaskan Yupik scientist and got this reply: "We have no concept of 'wilderness'. What you call 'wildnerness' we call our backyard. To us none of Alaska is wilderness defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act - a place without people. We are deeply insulted by that concept, as we are by the whole idea of 'wilderness designation' that too often excludes native Alaskans from ancestral lands". The nearest approximation in Yupik of "biodiversity" is "food". In Pima (Native Indians of Arizona and Mexico), the nearest approximation for "wilderness" is "health" or "wholeness".
I cannot help but feel that the coldness of the biology that is taught in Singapore is leaving us behind in conservation thought, at the the era of 1964. Conservation biology students have a hardnosed economics vs biodiversity mindset. No doubt that is important. However, anthropology is quickly assuming a role in conservation biology that our students have so far largely failed to take notice. Take for example 'slash-and-burn'. Singaporeans immediately think: haze, forest loss, animals running out of habitat. But how many realise that shifting 'slash-and-burn' or more correctly, swidden agriculture of native peoples actually create mosaics that improve the fire-resistance of the forests, that it reduces erosion rates of standard tilling and ploughing techniques of farming? Now, I am NOT defending the people who caused the haze, those were due to commercial farmers try to clear land quickly to plant cash crops and exhaust the land. We have to make the differentiation between materialist, commercial burning and subsistence, shifting swidden agriculture. Slash-and-burn do NOT always mean the haze, and people should stop calling for it to banned as they are the only livelihoods for some people who actually through doing so, and they enhance and have actually been actively and positively shaping biodiversity for thousands of years.
But we must be careful. We cannot say that we are condemning these people to a primitive life. A lot of times people and governments use this argument, but it is again a perspective of cold, hard numbers. People should be allowed to live their lives as their ancestral culture dictates. Besides, it is always wrong to evict people who have done no wrong except for living primitively - from a Western perspective. Turn the situation on its head. Imagine forest or nomadic cultures one say became militarily and scientifically strong while living in the forest. Would it be right for them to head out to France to pull down the Eiffel Tower or to London tear down city? Obviously not. We view the environment and landscape differently and we cannot assume we are always right.
Coming back to Singapore and biodiversity and conservation education, can the reader see what we are lacking now? I hope you do. If not, I will say it here: anthropology. The current system we have will allow us (although some people will dispute it) to produce good biodiversity scientists coming from a Western perspective. But until the system changes and students have to learn cultures and social perspectives of biodiversity and conservation of indigenous cultures, we will NEVER see a prominent, successful CONSERVATIONIST as it requires a balanced, global perspective. I leave everyone with a speech from Roy Sesana, a G//ana bushman elder from the Kalahari in Botswana which he made when he received the Right Livelihood Award from the Swedish Parliament in 2005 for the courageous fight he put up in trying to tell the world of his people's right to remain in their ancestral land.
"Right Livelihood Award address, Stockholm, December 2005
My name is Roy Sesana; I am a Gana Bushman from the Kalahari in what is now called Botswana. In my language, my name is ëTobee' and our land is ëT//amm'. We have been there longer than any people has been anywhere.
When I was young, I went to work in a mine. I put off my skins and wore clothes. But I went home after a while. Does that make me less Bushman? I don't think so.
I am a leader. When I was a boy we did not need leaders and we lived well. Now we need them because our land is being stolen and we must struggle to survive. It doesn't mean I tell people what to do, it's the other way around: they tell me what I have to do to help them.
I cannot read. You wanted me to write this speech, so my friends helped, but I cannot read words - I'm sorry! But I do know how to read the land and the animals. All our children could. If they didn't, they would have all died long ago.
I know many who can read words and many, like me, who can only read the land. Both are important. We are not backward or less intelligent: we live in exactly the same up-to-date year as you. I was going to say we all live under the same stars, but no, they're different, and there are many more in the Kalahari. The sun and moon are the same.
I grew up a hunter. All our boys and men were hunters. Hunting is going and talking to the animals. You don't steal. You go and ask. You set a trap or go with bow or spear. It can take days. You track the antelope. He knows you are there, he knows he has to give you his strength. But he runs and you have to run. As you run, you become like him. It can last hours and exhaust you both. You talk to him and look into his eyes. And then he knows he must give you his strength so your children can live.
When I first hunted, I was not allowed to eat. Pieces of the steenbok were burnt with some roots and spread on my body. This is how I learned. It's not the same way you learn, but it works well.
The farmer says he is more advanced than the backward hunter, but I don't believe him. His herds give no more food than ours. The antelope are not our slaves, they do not wear bells on their necks and they can run faster than the lazy cow or the herder. We run through life together.
When I wear the antelope horns, it helps me talk to my ancestors and they help me. The ancestors are so important: we would not be alive without them. Everyone knows this in their heart, but some have forgotten. Would any of us be here without our ancestors? I don't think so.
I was trained as a healer. You have to read the plants and the sand. You have to dig the roots and become fit. You put some of the root back for tomorrow, so one day your grandchildren can find it and eat. You learn what the land tells you.
When the old die, we bury them and they become ancestors. When there is sickness, we dance and we talk to them; they speak through my blood. I touch the sick person and can find the illness and heal it.
We are the ancestors of our grandchildren's children. We look after them, just as our ancestors look after us. We aren't here for ourselves. We are here for each other and for the children of our grandchildren.
Why am I here? Because my people love their land, and without it we are dying. Many years ago, the president of Botswana said we could live on our ancestral land forever. We never needed anyone to tell us that. Of course we can live where God created us! But the next president said we must move and began forcing us away.
They said we had to go because of diamonds. Then they said we were killing too many animals: but that's not true. They say many things which aren't true. They said we had to move so the government could develop us. The president says unless we change we will perish like the dodo. I didn't know what a dodo was. But I found out: it was a bird which was wiped out by settlers. The president was right. They are killing us by forcing us off our land. We have been tortured and shot at. They arrested me and beat me.
Thank you for the Right Livelihood Award. It is global recognition of our struggle and will raise our voice throughout the world. When I heard I had won I had just been let out of prison. They say I am a criminal, as I stand here today.
I say what kind of development is it when the people live shorter lives than before? They catch HIV/AIDS. Our children are beaten in school and won't go there. Some become prostitutes. They are not allowed to hunt. They fight because they are bored and get drunk. They are starting to commit suicide. We never saw that before. It hurts to say this. Is this ëdevelopment'?
We are not primitive. We live differently to you, but we do not live exactly like our grandparents did, nor do you. Were your ancestors ëprimitive'? I don't think so. We respect our ancestors. We love our children. This is the same for all people.
We now have to stop the government stealing our land: without it we will die.
If anyone has read a lot of books and thinks I am primitive because I have not read even one, then he should throw away those books and get one which says we are all brothers and sisters under God and we too have a right to live.
That is all. Thank you."
*Note: He is not Christian, he made the speech in native language and this was the best translation in English.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Stuff!
Actually this is just a place for my stuff, ya know? That's all, a little place for my stuff. That's all I want, that's all you need in life, is a little place for your stuff, ya know? I can see it on your table, everybody's got a little place for their stuff. This is my stuff, that's your stuff, that'll be his stuff over there. That's all you need in life, a little place for your stuff. That's all your house is: a place to keep your stuff. If you didn't have so much stuff, you wouldn't need a house. You could just walk around all the time.
A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. You can see that when you're taking off in an airplane. You look down, you see everybody's got a little pile of stuff. All the little piles of stuff. And when you leave your house, you gotta lock it up. Wouldn't want somebody to come by and take some of your stuff. They always take the good stuff. They never bother with that crap you're saving. All they want is the shiny stuff. That's what your house is, a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get...more stuff!
Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house. Why? No room for your stuff anymore. Did you ever notice when you go to somebody else's house, you never quite feel a hundred percent at home? You know why? No room for your stuff. Somebody else's stuff is all over the goddamn place! And if you stay overnight, unexpectedly, they give you a little bedroom to sleep in. Bedroom they haven't used in about eleven years. Someone died in it, eleven years ago. And they haven't moved any of his stuff! Right next to the bed there's usually a dresser or a bureau of some kind, and there's NO ROOM for your stuff on it. Somebody else's shit is on the dresser.
Have you noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff? God! And you say, "Get that shit offa there and let me put my stuff down!"
Sometimes you leave your house to go on vacation. And you gotta take some of your stuff with you. Gotta take about two big suitcases full of stuff, when you go on vacation. You gotta take a smaller version of your house. It's the second version of your stuff. And you're gonna fly all the way to Honolulu. Gonna go across the continent, across half an ocean to Honolulu. You get down to the hotel room in Honolulu and you open up your suitcase and you put away all your stuff. "Here's a place here, put a little bit of stuff there, put some stuff here, put some stuff--you put your stuff there, I'll put some stuff--here's another place for stuff, look at this, I'll put some stuff here..." And even though you're far away from home, you start to get used to it, you start to feel okay, because after all, you do have some of your stuff with you. That's when your friend calls up from Maui, and says, "Hey, why don'tchya come over to Maui for the weekend and spend a couple of nights over here."
Oh, no! Now what do I pack? Right, you've gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The third version of your house. Just enough stuff to take to Maui for a coupla days. You get over to Maui--I mean you're really getting extended now, when you think about it. You got stuff ALL the way back on the mainland, you got stuff on another island, you got stuff on this island. I mean, supply lines are getting longer and harder to maintain. You get over to your friend's house on Maui and he gives you a little place to sleep, a little bed right next to his windowsill or something. You put some of your stuff up there. You put your stuff up there. You got your Visine, you got your nail clippers, and you put everything up. It takes about an hour and a half, but after a while you finally feel okay, say, "All right, I got my nail clippers, I must be okay." That's when your friend says, "Aaaaay, I think tonight we'll go over the other side of the island, visit a pal of mine and maybe stay over."
Aww, no. NOW what do you pack? Right--you gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The fourth version of your house. Only the stuff you know you're gonna need. Money, keys, comb, wallet, lighter, hanky, pen, smokes, rubber and change. Well, only the stuff you HOPE you're gonna need.
(All material written and owned by George Carlin)
A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. You can see that when you're taking off in an airplane. You look down, you see everybody's got a little pile of stuff. All the little piles of stuff. And when you leave your house, you gotta lock it up. Wouldn't want somebody to come by and take some of your stuff. They always take the good stuff. They never bother with that crap you're saving. All they want is the shiny stuff. That's what your house is, a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get...more stuff!
Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house. Why? No room for your stuff anymore. Did you ever notice when you go to somebody else's house, you never quite feel a hundred percent at home? You know why? No room for your stuff. Somebody else's stuff is all over the goddamn place! And if you stay overnight, unexpectedly, they give you a little bedroom to sleep in. Bedroom they haven't used in about eleven years. Someone died in it, eleven years ago. And they haven't moved any of his stuff! Right next to the bed there's usually a dresser or a bureau of some kind, and there's NO ROOM for your stuff on it. Somebody else's shit is on the dresser.
Have you noticed that their stuff is shit and your shit is stuff? God! And you say, "Get that shit offa there and let me put my stuff down!"
Sometimes you leave your house to go on vacation. And you gotta take some of your stuff with you. Gotta take about two big suitcases full of stuff, when you go on vacation. You gotta take a smaller version of your house. It's the second version of your stuff. And you're gonna fly all the way to Honolulu. Gonna go across the continent, across half an ocean to Honolulu. You get down to the hotel room in Honolulu and you open up your suitcase and you put away all your stuff. "Here's a place here, put a little bit of stuff there, put some stuff here, put some stuff--you put your stuff there, I'll put some stuff--here's another place for stuff, look at this, I'll put some stuff here..." And even though you're far away from home, you start to get used to it, you start to feel okay, because after all, you do have some of your stuff with you. That's when your friend calls up from Maui, and says, "Hey, why don'tchya come over to Maui for the weekend and spend a couple of nights over here."
Oh, no! Now what do I pack? Right, you've gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The third version of your house. Just enough stuff to take to Maui for a coupla days. You get over to Maui--I mean you're really getting extended now, when you think about it. You got stuff ALL the way back on the mainland, you got stuff on another island, you got stuff on this island. I mean, supply lines are getting longer and harder to maintain. You get over to your friend's house on Maui and he gives you a little place to sleep, a little bed right next to his windowsill or something. You put some of your stuff up there. You put your stuff up there. You got your Visine, you got your nail clippers, and you put everything up. It takes about an hour and a half, but after a while you finally feel okay, say, "All right, I got my nail clippers, I must be okay." That's when your friend says, "Aaaaay, I think tonight we'll go over the other side of the island, visit a pal of mine and maybe stay over."
Aww, no. NOW what do you pack? Right--you gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The fourth version of your house. Only the stuff you know you're gonna need. Money, keys, comb, wallet, lighter, hanky, pen, smokes, rubber and change. Well, only the stuff you HOPE you're gonna need.
(All material written and owned by George Carlin)
Sunday, March 8, 2009
The Girl Who Silenced the World for 5 mins
A coursemate forwarded this to me, and I thought it's one of the best clips ever to appear on Youtube. It features Severn Cullis-Suzuki, at the age of 12, speaking at the United Nations Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (that was where the Convention on Biodiversity was signed). Watch it, and think about what you were doing at 12, and if you are way past 12, what are you doing now?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Crocodile Post on STOMP
I read this post on STOMP, which basically was about this Singaporean who went to a Johor crocodile farm, and "learnt" stuff from the farm's owner. I quote the following from the post:
""The crocodile has no tongue and according to the farm owner, Mr Ng, it has 72 teeth which can even snap off your leg if you are within reach of its mouth."
Correction #1: The crocodile HAS a tongue. It is attached by a membrane to the bottom of its mouth so it's movement is limited and sometimes looks like it has no tongue. In fact for these estuarine (i.e. saltwater) crocodiles, the tongue is one of it's most important organs because it has salt glands to excrete the salt that gets into its physiology from it's saltwater environment in the wild.
Correction #2: Estuarine crocodiles have 64-68 teeth. Not 72. Firstly, there isn't a fixed value, and secondly, 72 is a bit high.
I suppose the STOMPer wouldn't have known better, but it's disturbing that supposed "experts" give dodgy information.
""The crocodile has no tongue and according to the farm owner, Mr Ng, it has 72 teeth which can even snap off your leg if you are within reach of its mouth."
Correction #1: The crocodile HAS a tongue. It is attached by a membrane to the bottom of its mouth so it's movement is limited and sometimes looks like it has no tongue. In fact for these estuarine (i.e. saltwater) crocodiles, the tongue is one of it's most important organs because it has salt glands to excrete the salt that gets into its physiology from it's saltwater environment in the wild.
Correction #2: Estuarine crocodiles have 64-68 teeth. Not 72. Firstly, there isn't a fixed value, and secondly, 72 is a bit high.
I suppose the STOMPer wouldn't have known better, but it's disturbing that supposed "experts" give dodgy information.
Friday, February 27, 2009
E-hoot for Dr. Jane Goodall
Dr. Jane Goodall will be 75 this April 3rd (And she still occasionally visits the field!). The Jane Goodall Institute has set up a webpage for an E-hoot (E-card, but chimps hoot, and so it will be an E-hoot for her). Anyone who would like to send her your greetings please do so at this link, and watch the great video there.
Send Dr. Goodall your birthday wishes!
http://www.janegoodall.org/splash/landing-JaneBdayRS.asp
Send Dr. Goodall your birthday wishes!
http://www.janegoodall.org/splash/landing-JaneBdayRS.asp
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children
There is a often used proverb, by David Brower "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children" (and no, it is not a native Indian proverb that many people think it is), which can be found in numerous conservation articles. Today, Dr. Jane Goodall gave a lecture here in Oxford, and this is what she said:
"Someone said that we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, but borrow it from out children. Look at the world around us. The line is a lie! We aren't borrowing from our children. Borrowing means that we will pay it back, but we aren't paying back. We are STEALING from our children...."
This is the second time I've sat in on Dr. Goodall's lecture, and again she hits me with something new to think about. Give it a ponder in the Singapore context. Parents work hard, spend a lot on luxuries (for themselves and their children), driving consumption through the roof. These parents are thinking they are giving their children good lives, and ingraining in them values of materialism, so that their children will plunder whatever's left from their grandchildren. Dr. Goodall also went on to say:
"We shouldn't be stealing from our future generations. We haven't paid them back yet, but we should."
And so it must be. Think about it. Are you stealing your (whether born or not) children's future? Are you willing to pay it back? Are we willing to be the generation that will shoulder the responsibility of collectively paying back for the generations past that have now returned to the soil?
On a brighter note, Dr. Goodall mentioned to me in the little bit of time we spoke, that she will be in Singapore this June! Watch this space for details of the possibility of events and lectures that might be available!
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Carrying Capacity and Singapore
I remember reading with great interest some forum with regards to population size, and carrying capacity with regards to Singapore.
For the technically uninclined, here's the definitions for the key word.
Carrying capacity: The maximum population size that can be supported by the available resources, symbolised as K. (Campbell and Reece, 2005)
The forum page had someone try to calculate the carrying capacity of Singapore using area size (680 sq kilometres or 168,032 acres roughly) and the average area of land required to feed an average American (something like 1.5 acres). So that gives a figure of K=112,021 people that Singapore can support. Given that the Singapore Government is targetting 6 million to sustain long-term economic growth, the post then asserts that the population of Singapore will plunge by more than 90%. This is very alarmist. The problem is far more complex than the writer thinks. Global carryng capacity for humans lies around 10-15 billion (depending on who's calculation you look at). And given the way we import our food, effective land use in this aspect for Singapore is actually far bigger than the actual land area of Singapore itself. However, all these calculations should not be taken too seriously.
Carrying capacity is a snapshot number. It is dependent upon many factors, like technology and efficiency, production and consumption, and the interactions between the biotic and abiotic factors in the environment (Arrow et al., 1995). A single technological innovation in primary production may significantly raise carrying capacity, just as a single comet hitting the Earth will significantly reduce carrying capacity.
The example of the collapse of the Roman population in the ancient times was also cited, but these were self-sustaining, agricultural populations, a period of time which technology very much infantile, way before innovations like the Haber process.
Perhaps we should look at other indicators. How much of global terrestrial primary production is taken by humans. It's actually around 40% (Vitousek et al.), and probably rising due to forest and arable land loss due to poor farming practices, and an exponentially increasing human population and the accompanying increase in consumption. Now that statistic makes more sense, and should make people sit up and take notice.
How do we relate the 10-15 billion carrying capacity and the disproportionate amount of primary production we consume given we're only halfway, or less to the limit? I think here, perhaps it is useful to recall again that the carrying capacity number is a snapshot number, done using curves and models of the current situation (or the situation as of the calculation). One thing that mathematical models cannot predict is preference, and the human desire for excess. People are not content with enough. They want 'more than enough'. Everyone wants to consume at the rate of Bill Gates and Hollywood celebrities. That is one of the main problems. As the human population increases, and the corresponding number of people having such desires, and a good number of them working towards and 'achieving' these targets, the scenarios start to change. Mathematical parameters change, and the carrying capacity is slashed because what society deems as enough is actually ecologically excessive. Couple that with the exponential increase in human population, then it might seem that the two limits are racing towards each other.
At this point in time, it's not the end of the world. A 90% drop in population for Singapore is way off the target for now, while the current estimates of carrying capacity remain relatively high up. However, we should not try to meet carrying capacity. In fact, the further away we are from carrying capacity the better. There must be a significant buffer between the two points. We could go about it by working on both points. Raise the carrying capacity, and reduce the rate of human population increase. People should control and bring down the upper limits of consumption, so more resources are freed up and this can actually increase carrying capacity. Nations with disproportionate increase in populations should also watch their birth rates. If not for ecological reasons, then for humanitarian reasons, as often, these are areas where poverty levels are relatively high.
So how does Singapore fit in all this? 6 million people seems a lot for an island nation like ours, especially during rush hour in the MRT trains, but the effective terrestrial land use area for things like food production and energy resource extend the area far beyond her sovereign boundaries. Singapore is technologically advanced, with a top notch sanitary infrastructure (I know coffee shops leave a lot to be desired but at least the flushing works and it's not a hole in the ground). As such, carry capacity for Singapore in effect could be very high indeed. HOWEVER, that said, our problem, like much of humanity, is that we still require a massive shift in mindset in terms of our consumption and our attitudes towards nature, biodiversity, conservation and their balance against economic growth and well-being.
References:
Campbell, N.A and Reece, J.B. (2005) Biology. 7th Edn. Pearson Education Inc.
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Bengt-Jansson, B-O., Levin, S., Maler, K.G., Perrings, C., and Pimentel, D. (1995) Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity and the Environment. Science 268: 520-521
Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., and Matson, P.A. (1986) Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis. BioScience 36: 368-380
For the technically uninclined, here's the definitions for the key word.
Carrying capacity: The maximum population size that can be supported by the available resources, symbolised as K. (Campbell and Reece, 2005)
The forum page had someone try to calculate the carrying capacity of Singapore using area size (680 sq kilometres or 168,032 acres roughly) and the average area of land required to feed an average American (something like 1.5 acres). So that gives a figure of K=112,021 people that Singapore can support. Given that the Singapore Government is targetting 6 million to sustain long-term economic growth, the post then asserts that the population of Singapore will plunge by more than 90%. This is very alarmist. The problem is far more complex than the writer thinks. Global carryng capacity for humans lies around 10-15 billion (depending on who's calculation you look at). And given the way we import our food, effective land use in this aspect for Singapore is actually far bigger than the actual land area of Singapore itself. However, all these calculations should not be taken too seriously.
Carrying capacity is a snapshot number. It is dependent upon many factors, like technology and efficiency, production and consumption, and the interactions between the biotic and abiotic factors in the environment (Arrow et al., 1995). A single technological innovation in primary production may significantly raise carrying capacity, just as a single comet hitting the Earth will significantly reduce carrying capacity.
The example of the collapse of the Roman population in the ancient times was also cited, but these were self-sustaining, agricultural populations, a period of time which technology very much infantile, way before innovations like the Haber process.
Perhaps we should look at other indicators. How much of global terrestrial primary production is taken by humans. It's actually around 40% (Vitousek et al.), and probably rising due to forest and arable land loss due to poor farming practices, and an exponentially increasing human population and the accompanying increase in consumption. Now that statistic makes more sense, and should make people sit up and take notice.
How do we relate the 10-15 billion carrying capacity and the disproportionate amount of primary production we consume given we're only halfway, or less to the limit? I think here, perhaps it is useful to recall again that the carrying capacity number is a snapshot number, done using curves and models of the current situation (or the situation as of the calculation). One thing that mathematical models cannot predict is preference, and the human desire for excess. People are not content with enough. They want 'more than enough'. Everyone wants to consume at the rate of Bill Gates and Hollywood celebrities. That is one of the main problems. As the human population increases, and the corresponding number of people having such desires, and a good number of them working towards and 'achieving' these targets, the scenarios start to change. Mathematical parameters change, and the carrying capacity is slashed because what society deems as enough is actually ecologically excessive. Couple that with the exponential increase in human population, then it might seem that the two limits are racing towards each other.
At this point in time, it's not the end of the world. A 90% drop in population for Singapore is way off the target for now, while the current estimates of carrying capacity remain relatively high up. However, we should not try to meet carrying capacity. In fact, the further away we are from carrying capacity the better. There must be a significant buffer between the two points. We could go about it by working on both points. Raise the carrying capacity, and reduce the rate of human population increase. People should control and bring down the upper limits of consumption, so more resources are freed up and this can actually increase carrying capacity. Nations with disproportionate increase in populations should also watch their birth rates. If not for ecological reasons, then for humanitarian reasons, as often, these are areas where poverty levels are relatively high.
So how does Singapore fit in all this? 6 million people seems a lot for an island nation like ours, especially during rush hour in the MRT trains, but the effective terrestrial land use area for things like food production and energy resource extend the area far beyond her sovereign boundaries. Singapore is technologically advanced, with a top notch sanitary infrastructure (I know coffee shops leave a lot to be desired but at least the flushing works and it's not a hole in the ground). As such, carry capacity for Singapore in effect could be very high indeed. HOWEVER, that said, our problem, like much of humanity, is that we still require a massive shift in mindset in terms of our consumption and our attitudes towards nature, biodiversity, conservation and their balance against economic growth and well-being.
References:
Campbell, N.A and Reece, J.B. (2005) Biology. 7th Edn. Pearson Education Inc.
Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C.S., Bengt-Jansson, B-O., Levin, S., Maler, K.G., Perrings, C., and Pimentel, D. (1995) Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity and the Environment. Science 268: 520-521
Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., and Matson, P.A. (1986) Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis. BioScience 36: 368-380
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Treating the Symptom but Not the Root?
The BBC website posted this article today, "'Climate-proof' crop hunt begins".
The idea of the whole project was to produce cultivars of crop plants that will be able to cope with impacts from climate change, and that crops must "..must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, and more expensive energy".
However, is this the right way to approach the climate-change problem? Does this step give administrations more time and excuse to delay setting or meeting emissions targets, since food resources would have become "more secure"? It smacks of short-sightedness as far as I am concerned. Humans have gotten ourselves, and a large proportion of other lifeforms on Earth in trouble BECAUSE of the way we live, and BECAUSE of this "治标不治本" mentality (Treating the symptoms but not the root). It is very likely that too many humans are living in their isolation bubbles with no understanding and appreciation of geography and ecology (E.O Wilson agrees with me on that). So what if the experiment succeeds? People will continue to overconsume and overpopulate such that the results of the experiment would soon be overwhelmed. And then what? Produce an even more "super" super-crop? Where is the limit? Where do we draw the line? How about doing things the more painful (in the short run) but more sustainable (in the long run) way? Amazing revolutions and large-scale changes in the history of mankind have almost always resulted from us being forced into a corner and having out backs to walls. Instead of trying to escape the reality and gravity of the climate change situation, why don't we take a leaf out of the ancient military strategy books and adopt a 破釜沉舟 way (Basically it means to remove all forms of retreat and escape so there is no choice but to face the problem)? Would that not be better?
The idea of the whole project was to produce cultivars of crop plants that will be able to cope with impacts from climate change, and that crops must "..must produce more food, on the same amount of land, with less water, and more expensive energy".
However, is this the right way to approach the climate-change problem? Does this step give administrations more time and excuse to delay setting or meeting emissions targets, since food resources would have become "more secure"? It smacks of short-sightedness as far as I am concerned. Humans have gotten ourselves, and a large proportion of other lifeforms on Earth in trouble BECAUSE of the way we live, and BECAUSE of this "治标不治本" mentality (Treating the symptoms but not the root). It is very likely that too many humans are living in their isolation bubbles with no understanding and appreciation of geography and ecology (E.O Wilson agrees with me on that). So what if the experiment succeeds? People will continue to overconsume and overpopulate such that the results of the experiment would soon be overwhelmed. And then what? Produce an even more "super" super-crop? Where is the limit? Where do we draw the line? How about doing things the more painful (in the short run) but more sustainable (in the long run) way? Amazing revolutions and large-scale changes in the history of mankind have almost always resulted from us being forced into a corner and having out backs to walls. Instead of trying to escape the reality and gravity of the climate change situation, why don't we take a leaf out of the ancient military strategy books and adopt a 破釜沉舟 way (Basically it means to remove all forms of retreat and escape so there is no choice but to face the problem)? Would that not be better?
Monday, June 2, 2008
Reaction to article
I read this article with some interest.
The part that made me scribble this little post is this:
"Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said measuring hormone levels may not tell the story as well as observing listless or repetitive behavior."
Stress hormone levels are the best indicators of stress as behaviours are the result of biochemistry and physiology of the animal. The animal would not show signs of stress without increased cortisol levels driving such behaviours. Mr Pacelle received his training in History and Environmental Studies, so he might need to be a little more open to physiological studies. The pacing comment was especially interesting, because it showed that repetitive behaviour is not necessarily equivalent to stress, because the physiology does not match up. This is one great example how animal biology should work, biochemistry and physiology and all the other facets like behaviour, etc, must be integrated to give us a full picture of the situation. What we feel is happening just by viewing is just that, our feeling. Which very often, is wrong.
The part that made me scribble this little post is this:
"Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said measuring hormone levels may not tell the story as well as observing listless or repetitive behavior."
Stress hormone levels are the best indicators of stress as behaviours are the result of biochemistry and physiology of the animal. The animal would not show signs of stress without increased cortisol levels driving such behaviours. Mr Pacelle received his training in History and Environmental Studies, so he might need to be a little more open to physiological studies. The pacing comment was especially interesting, because it showed that repetitive behaviour is not necessarily equivalent to stress, because the physiology does not match up. This is one great example how animal biology should work, biochemistry and physiology and all the other facets like behaviour, etc, must be integrated to give us a full picture of the situation. What we feel is happening just by viewing is just that, our feeling. Which very often, is wrong.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Battle at Kruger National Park
Amazing, amazing video captured by tourists, and it won a National Geographic award. It's almost a whole ecology and evolutionary biology lesson in this video. Now watch it here!
(For some irritating reason, there's no embedding)
(For some irritating reason, there's no embedding)
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Comments on Summary of Survey Results on Biological Conservation Attitudes
I just read the survey results here.
One particular result was quite interesting, with SOC apparently having the most pro-conservation students.
Some of comments, hopefully the student who did the survey won't take offense at me taking such liberties with his/her work.
Finding 1: Students had similar conservation attitudes for plant species, animal species or natural habitats and did not value any one more over the other.
Comment: This is something that I realised a little while back, that people who weren't biologists but were pro-conservation often promote conserving everything. It would be interesting to find if it was because they didn't know enough to have a target. On the other hand, biologists often have a "target" group to conserve, and have come up with the idea of "flagship species". The basic idea is to save whole habitats to protect the flagship species and in doing so protect everything else living there as well. In reality, governments often play a trading game. Trade the survival of one species, and compromise another, species more abundant at that point in time. So is the "ignorant" way better? Or the "flagship species" model?
Finding 2: Students were more likely to exhibit private conservation behaviours than public conservation behaviours.
Comment: Singaporeans ma. Prefer to do stuff while taking cover in a foxhole. Nothing wrong though, except maybe through public conservation efforts, the inspiration component is more emphasised.
Finding 3: Students from the income groups with less than $4,000 per month or more than $8,000 per month, had more pro-conservation attitudes compared to students from the $4,000–8,000 group.
Comment: This is to be expected I guess, but I think it speaks quite a bit about the ideas that society in general has about conservation. Conservation is probably seen as something "extra", as money goes in without a visible, tangible profit. It is quite complex, where different attitudes to economics of the lower, middle and upper classes (by financial powers) come into the play. But it can be a bit too abrasive to discuss, so I shal leave it at that.
Finding 4: Students who are taking or had previously taken conservation-related modules had more pro-conservation attitudes than those who have not.
Comment: Conservation education has the wonderful advantage of being able to move people, probably because it has a "soft" side to it. Unlike other things, like say, organic chemistry or mathematics or other "hard" subjects, where people can actually hate and reject, as they become educated in it.
Finding 5: Students who are from the School of Computing have more pro-conservation attitudes than average; while students from the Business School have less pro-conservation attitudes than average (see below).
Comment: What a surprise! Although I must say that for some other faculties, I think they do conform to their stereotype.
One particular result was quite interesting, with SOC apparently having the most pro-conservation students.
Some of comments, hopefully the student who did the survey won't take offense at me taking such liberties with his/her work.
Finding 1: Students had similar conservation attitudes for plant species, animal species or natural habitats and did not value any one more over the other.
Comment: This is something that I realised a little while back, that people who weren't biologists but were pro-conservation often promote conserving everything. It would be interesting to find if it was because they didn't know enough to have a target. On the other hand, biologists often have a "target" group to conserve, and have come up with the idea of "flagship species". The basic idea is to save whole habitats to protect the flagship species and in doing so protect everything else living there as well. In reality, governments often play a trading game. Trade the survival of one species, and compromise another, species more abundant at that point in time. So is the "ignorant" way better? Or the "flagship species" model?
Finding 2: Students were more likely to exhibit private conservation behaviours than public conservation behaviours.
Comment: Singaporeans ma. Prefer to do stuff while taking cover in a foxhole. Nothing wrong though, except maybe through public conservation efforts, the inspiration component is more emphasised.
Finding 3: Students from the income groups with less than $4,000 per month or more than $8,000 per month, had more pro-conservation attitudes compared to students from the $4,000–8,000 group.
Comment: This is to be expected I guess, but I think it speaks quite a bit about the ideas that society in general has about conservation. Conservation is probably seen as something "extra", as money goes in without a visible, tangible profit. It is quite complex, where different attitudes to economics of the lower, middle and upper classes (by financial powers) come into the play. But it can be a bit too abrasive to discuss, so I shal leave it at that.
Finding 4: Students who are taking or had previously taken conservation-related modules had more pro-conservation attitudes than those who have not.
Comment: Conservation education has the wonderful advantage of being able to move people, probably because it has a "soft" side to it. Unlike other things, like say, organic chemistry or mathematics or other "hard" subjects, where people can actually hate and reject, as they become educated in it.
Finding 5: Students who are from the School of Computing have more pro-conservation attitudes than average; while students from the Business School have less pro-conservation attitudes than average (see below).
Comment: What a surprise! Although I must say that for some other faculties, I think they do conform to their stereotype.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Pesticide DDT Shows Up in Antarctic Penguins
"By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pesticide DDT, banned decades ago in much of the world, still shows up in penguins in Antarctica, probably due to the chemical's accumulation in melting glaciers, a sea bird expert said on Friday.
Adelie penguins, known for their waddling gait and a habit of nesting on stones, have long shown evidence of DDT in their fatty tissues, although not in enough concentration to hurt the birds, according to Heidi Geisz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
But researchers were surprised to see that the level of the pesticide in Adelies' fat had not declined, even after DDT was banned for exterior use in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere.
First noted in 1964, while the chemical was still widely used, the amount of DDT found in Adelie penguins rose in the 1970s and has stayed stable since then, Geisz said in a telephone interview.
In findings published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Geisz and her colleagues noted that persistent organic pollutants like DDT accumulate and become concentrated in the Antarctic ecosystem.
"DDT, along with a lot of other of these organic contaminants, actually travel through the atmosphere ... toward the polar regions by a process of evaporation and then condensation in cooler climates," Geisz said, explaining this is how the pesticide got deposited in Antarctic glaciers.
DDT declined dramatically in Arctic wildlife over the last decade, while the amount of the chemical in Antarctic Adelies stayed stable, the study said.
DDT was easily detectable in glacier melt water, Geisz said.
FOOD CHAIN
Adelies feed off tiny creatures called krill that live in melted glacier water, and DDT is transmitted up the food chain directly to the penguins.
There is not enough of the chemical to harm the birds, but it is measurable in samples of penguin corpses and their abandoned eggs, Geisz said.
Some kinds of birds that ingest DDT, especially birds of prey like the American bald eagle, produce eggs with extremely thin shells which are easily crushed by adult birds. Geisz said this has not been demonstrated to be the case with sea birds.
A more pressing issue for the Adelie penguins that breed on the Antarctic Peninsula is encroaching climate change, she said. The peninsula, which stretches north toward South America, has been warming much faster than the rest of the continent.
Warming on the peninsula means "we see more snow and more moisture and these (Adelie) eggs end up getting soaked and frozen," Geisz said. "It allows opportunities for people like me to study the eggs, but it's not necessarily ideal for the penguins."
Originally developed as a powerful multi-species pesticide, DDT was used in World War Two to clear South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops and in Europe as a de-lousing powder. The United States banned the chemical in 1972. The World Health Organization approved it in 2006 for use indoors to fight malaria."
Kinda makes you wonder how much more human produced rubbish are being released from the melting glaciers. Of course, it would be unrealistic expect WHO to not allow DDT in fighting malaria, but it also means that we need to educate people about malaria prevention, and dangers of mosquito-breeding indoors.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The pesticide DDT, banned decades ago in much of the world, still shows up in penguins in Antarctica, probably due to the chemical's accumulation in melting glaciers, a sea bird expert said on Friday.
Adelie penguins, known for their waddling gait and a habit of nesting on stones, have long shown evidence of DDT in their fatty tissues, although not in enough concentration to hurt the birds, according to Heidi Geisz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
But researchers were surprised to see that the level of the pesticide in Adelies' fat had not declined, even after DDT was banned for exterior use in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere.
First noted in 1964, while the chemical was still widely used, the amount of DDT found in Adelie penguins rose in the 1970s and has stayed stable since then, Geisz said in a telephone interview.
In findings published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, Geisz and her colleagues noted that persistent organic pollutants like DDT accumulate and become concentrated in the Antarctic ecosystem.
"DDT, along with a lot of other of these organic contaminants, actually travel through the atmosphere ... toward the polar regions by a process of evaporation and then condensation in cooler climates," Geisz said, explaining this is how the pesticide got deposited in Antarctic glaciers.
DDT declined dramatically in Arctic wildlife over the last decade, while the amount of the chemical in Antarctic Adelies stayed stable, the study said.
DDT was easily detectable in glacier melt water, Geisz said.
FOOD CHAIN
Adelies feed off tiny creatures called krill that live in melted glacier water, and DDT is transmitted up the food chain directly to the penguins.
There is not enough of the chemical to harm the birds, but it is measurable in samples of penguin corpses and their abandoned eggs, Geisz said.
Some kinds of birds that ingest DDT, especially birds of prey like the American bald eagle, produce eggs with extremely thin shells which are easily crushed by adult birds. Geisz said this has not been demonstrated to be the case with sea birds.
A more pressing issue for the Adelie penguins that breed on the Antarctic Peninsula is encroaching climate change, she said. The peninsula, which stretches north toward South America, has been warming much faster than the rest of the continent.
Warming on the peninsula means "we see more snow and more moisture and these (Adelie) eggs end up getting soaked and frozen," Geisz said. "It allows opportunities for people like me to study the eggs, but it's not necessarily ideal for the penguins."
Originally developed as a powerful multi-species pesticide, DDT was used in World War Two to clear South Pacific islands of malaria-causing insects for U.S. troops and in Europe as a de-lousing powder. The United States banned the chemical in 1972. The World Health Organization approved it in 2006 for use indoors to fight malaria."
Kinda makes you wonder how much more human produced rubbish are being released from the melting glaciers. Of course, it would be unrealistic expect WHO to not allow DDT in fighting malaria, but it also means that we need to educate people about malaria prevention, and dangers of mosquito-breeding indoors.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
The Truth Makes Things Difficult, But Untruths Can Be Fatal
I had really wanted to write this as soon as that the ridiculous description of macaque behaviour appeared in the newspapers, but as I was busy and Dr. Michael Gummert had written a splendid response, I had an excuse to procrastinate longer on the issue. Anyhow, for some reason, I remembered something that was put up by some vegetarian society sometime back, and it finally gave me some impetus to write something about this - the truth.
Singaporeans are generally a cowardly bunch. We see wrong in the streets but we gawk and take videos and put it on STOMP instead of stopping whatever that is going on. We have grown adults fleeing at the sight of an Oriental Whip Snake. We build houses right in the middle of macaque land and run out bawling like spoilt babies when the original landlords decide to visit. I have often wondered, if this irrational fear of animals and wildlife is a result of years of conditioning by lies when we were all children. The macaque mis-reporting certainly has made me more sure of it. I shall not repeat what Michael said, he's said everything there is to say about the issue. However, the point to make is this: how many macaques (or other animals), have been trapped / killed by this lie-driven irrational fear?
The vegetarian movement suffers the same. A (probably) well-intentioned movement it may be, but perhaps the emotions, or the desperation for it to succeed have often driven such movements to base their arguments on half- or un-truths. The vegetarian movement in NUS had an argument identical to the one posted on this website. However, so much of their arguments are false. It had listed 7 points comparing humans to carnivores and herbivores and have portrayed humans seemingly to be identical to herbivores. However, there is a single point that they have neglected to consider (either out of ignorance or on purpose). Humans are primates. And they have all the characteristics that the seven points mentioned. However, great ape primates eat meat. Chimpanzees and Orang Utans hunt. Early man hunted. We possess an entire battery of enzymes capable of digesting animal matter, BUT we do not have a developed caecum of herbivores. Of course, I'm not saying that we AREN'T meant to eat plant matter, but that our physiology is meant for a omnivorous diet, tending probably to more plant than animal matter.
The vegetarian movement in all likelihood started from people who were affected by seeing animals in farms and slaughterhouses. But to argue for it from a flawed viewpoint and conveniently ignoring counter-points borders on dishonesty, and for those among us who know a bit of biology, the movement is a failure.
From the environmental point of view, I have mentioned in an earlier post, that agriculture is probably at least part of the reason that the planet is so screwed up now. To move from omnivorous to vegetarian diets will just mean that forests will be cleared for planting crops. The problem is that the planet is overpopulated with Homo sapiens living environmentally unsustainable lifestyles.
Singaporeans are generally a cowardly bunch. We see wrong in the streets but we gawk and take videos and put it on STOMP instead of stopping whatever that is going on. We have grown adults fleeing at the sight of an Oriental Whip Snake. We build houses right in the middle of macaque land and run out bawling like spoilt babies when the original landlords decide to visit. I have often wondered, if this irrational fear of animals and wildlife is a result of years of conditioning by lies when we were all children. The macaque mis-reporting certainly has made me more sure of it. I shall not repeat what Michael said, he's said everything there is to say about the issue. However, the point to make is this: how many macaques (or other animals), have been trapped / killed by this lie-driven irrational fear?
The vegetarian movement suffers the same. A (probably) well-intentioned movement it may be, but perhaps the emotions, or the desperation for it to succeed have often driven such movements to base their arguments on half- or un-truths. The vegetarian movement in NUS had an argument identical to the one posted on this website. However, so much of their arguments are false. It had listed 7 points comparing humans to carnivores and herbivores and have portrayed humans seemingly to be identical to herbivores. However, there is a single point that they have neglected to consider (either out of ignorance or on purpose). Humans are primates. And they have all the characteristics that the seven points mentioned. However, great ape primates eat meat. Chimpanzees and Orang Utans hunt. Early man hunted. We possess an entire battery of enzymes capable of digesting animal matter, BUT we do not have a developed caecum of herbivores. Of course, I'm not saying that we AREN'T meant to eat plant matter, but that our physiology is meant for a omnivorous diet, tending probably to more plant than animal matter.
The vegetarian movement in all likelihood started from people who were affected by seeing animals in farms and slaughterhouses. But to argue for it from a flawed viewpoint and conveniently ignoring counter-points borders on dishonesty, and for those among us who know a bit of biology, the movement is a failure.
From the environmental point of view, I have mentioned in an earlier post, that agriculture is probably at least part of the reason that the planet is so screwed up now. To move from omnivorous to vegetarian diets will just mean that forests will be cleared for planting crops. The problem is that the planet is overpopulated with Homo sapiens living environmentally unsustainable lifestyles.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Earth Hour and Coal-fired Power Plants
The happenings in the past week over Earth Hour and the Tuas power plant has reinforced further my stand that there should be an ecologist / conservation scientist in a cabinet over-populated with engineers and economists. I’m not sure if the government intended to thrust him out in the open, but it seems Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran must bear a lot of criticism for a lot of the things that have happened that are not very green.
At a speech on the 6th November in 2007, Mr Iswaran said this:
“Energy, in particular, will be a key challenge for East Asia and ASEAN. As our cities grow and our peoples’ lives improve, we will need more energy for everything that we do – to light our homes, fuel our cars and power our industries. We are cognizant of the fact that reliable and affordable energy is an essential element of the urban lifestyle. We are equally and perhaps acutely aware of the trade-offs to be made between more intensive use of energy and the impact on our environment. Emissions from vehicles, factories and power stations affect our air quality. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is also the key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
East Asia and ASEAN, which embody developed and emerging economies and populous countries, epitomises this triangle of tension between economic growth, energy requirements and environmental sustainability. Unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences is not an option. Neither is the surrender of economic growth and higher living standards for our people. Indeed, the East Asia and ASEAN economic integration process, with all its diversity and varied interests, will be a litmus test of mankind’s ability to balance the demands of development with the needs of the environment, to reconcile progress with sustainability. With rising concerns about climate change, we have to procure alternative and renewable energy sources, promote better emission-reduction technologies and energy efficiency, and protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia. The Southeast Asian and East Asian countries need to take collective ownership of this challenge and be part of the global effort to find solutions.”
5 months after he says that, Tuas Power is considering coal-fired power plants, due to “lower operating costs”. With the privatization of the energy sector, the other two companies, Power Seraya and Power Senoko, might have no choice but to switch to this cheaper alternative or be phased out. What about the soot and emissions that are making atheletes pull out from the Olympics in coal-powered China (keeping in mind that Singapore is due to host the 2010 Youth Olympic Games)? Isn’t this under “unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences”? It is shocking to see the government silent over this. How is the building of coal-fired power plants procurement of “renewable energy sources”? We might be able to make some improvements in emission reductions and energy efficiency, but has the carbon footprint of this project been considered? There are carbon costs in coal-mining, in coal transport, in plant building, and of course in firing the coal. Not to mention the atrocious safety conditions of many of China’s coal-mines. There could be blood seeping from you light switches in the future. Did Mr Iswaran forget what he said in that speech?
Earlier in the year, Mr Iswaran gave another speech, at the 23rd Asia-Pacific Petroleum Conference. He said:
“We will endeavour to integrate biofuels into our oil industry. In the last 3 years, the Economic Development Board of Singapore has made considerable headway in the biofuels sector by jump-starting biodiesel manufacturing on Jurong Island. With these efforts, Singapore’s biodiesel production output is expected to exceed one million tons per annum by 2010, and reach three million tons per annum by 2015.”
I wonder where the feedstock for the biofuel manufacturing will come from. The question is not in the type of feedstock, but whether the plantations where the raw materials come from are planted in felled forest land. Would the government make sure that the feedstock came from plantations that are not the result of forest lost? Or are they going to take Malaysia’s head-in-the-ground stand and pretend oil palm plantations are forests? Would Singapore be willing to reject feedstock from such areas at the risk of a loss of revenue (given that Mr. Iswaran already said “protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia”)? I await the results of the biodiesel manufacturing efforts.
Having given all those speeches, it is unfortunate, then, that Mr. Iswaran had to attend (and not object to) the F1 light-up during Earth Hour. This has probably led many to question the sincerity of his, and of the government’s commitment to energy-efficiency and being “responsible global citizens”. True enough, we are seeing letters being fired into forums and newspaper columns. And as far as I’ve seen, the government and Mr. Iswaran have again kept quiet. Earth Hour, while itself doesn’t actually save the world, is a symbolic gesture, to move masses to the conservation movement. It is ridiculous to simply look at one hour of savings versus the rest of the year. Symbolic gestures, are much like the one minute silence of remembrance, and should be respected. I’m not sure if the he knows that he had just trampled on the efforts of millions around the world, like a moron who bursts out laughing or jeering a one minute silence. During the event itself, Mr. Iswaran said the following:
“"The environmental concerns are legitimate. But you must keep them in perspective. You can't have an F1 race without noise. The cars make a lot of noise. In fact, it is part of the thrill for many fans and spectators.”
"But having said that, the F1 organisation is based in Europe where environmental consciousness is very high and they, as an organisation, have undertaken many measures to make sure they are minimising their carbon footprint, if not making it zero their carbon footprint. That's one part we should be paying attention to."
"The other element is that they are also undertaking various research efforts, for example in bio fuel and so on, to see how that can be adapted. So although the F1 is seen, at least in first blush, it might be anti-environment, there are many things they are doing that is actually pro environment,"
The environmentalists among us would have ripped his little comment to shreds in a minute. Formula One, with the fuel consumption, races all over the world, and long development process from prototype to the actual race car, means that they will probably never be carbon-neutral. Through R&D, what can be done is to reduce their carbon footprint, but making something less anti-environment is not the same as being pro-environment. The part on the biofuels is a bit dodgy as well, since we do not know how those fuels came about, as mentioned earlier. But don’t be mistaken. I’m not anti-Formula One. In fact I follow Formula One results. Like a lot of “bad” things (like weapons) Formula One is proof of mankind’s engineering ingenuity and mastery, and we should be proud of it. However, we also need these engineer-whizzes to put their heads to designing even more efficient engines as well.
I’m not sure how well-versed Mr. Iswaran is with environmental issues and both sides of the biofuels argument. However, to me, it seems that he needs some advice in this field. He’s MP of the area where I live, and at this rate, I’m not voting.
*Update: The Singapore GP organisers did reply to the complaints in the papers, but I still think that if they really wanted to, they would have moved it to a different time. Oh well, I'm not an economist, what do I know.
At a speech on the 6th November in 2007, Mr Iswaran said this:
“Energy, in particular, will be a key challenge for East Asia and ASEAN. As our cities grow and our peoples’ lives improve, we will need more energy for everything that we do – to light our homes, fuel our cars and power our industries. We are cognizant of the fact that reliable and affordable energy is an essential element of the urban lifestyle. We are equally and perhaps acutely aware of the trade-offs to be made between more intensive use of energy and the impact on our environment. Emissions from vehicles, factories and power stations affect our air quality. The burning of fossil fuels for energy is also the key contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
East Asia and ASEAN, which embody developed and emerging economies and populous countries, epitomises this triangle of tension between economic growth, energy requirements and environmental sustainability. Unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences is not an option. Neither is the surrender of economic growth and higher living standards for our people. Indeed, the East Asia and ASEAN economic integration process, with all its diversity and varied interests, will be a litmus test of mankind’s ability to balance the demands of development with the needs of the environment, to reconcile progress with sustainability. With rising concerns about climate change, we have to procure alternative and renewable energy sources, promote better emission-reduction technologies and energy efficiency, and protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia. The Southeast Asian and East Asian countries need to take collective ownership of this challenge and be part of the global effort to find solutions.”
5 months after he says that, Tuas Power is considering coal-fired power plants, due to “lower operating costs”. With the privatization of the energy sector, the other two companies, Power Seraya and Power Senoko, might have no choice but to switch to this cheaper alternative or be phased out. What about the soot and emissions that are making atheletes pull out from the Olympics in coal-powered China (keeping in mind that Singapore is due to host the 2010 Youth Olympic Games)? Isn’t this under “unbridled growth without heed to environmental consequences”? It is shocking to see the government silent over this. How is the building of coal-fired power plants procurement of “renewable energy sources”? We might be able to make some improvements in emission reductions and energy efficiency, but has the carbon footprint of this project been considered? There are carbon costs in coal-mining, in coal transport, in plant building, and of course in firing the coal. Not to mention the atrocious safety conditions of many of China’s coal-mines. There could be blood seeping from you light switches in the future. Did Mr Iswaran forget what he said in that speech?
Earlier in the year, Mr Iswaran gave another speech, at the 23rd Asia-Pacific Petroleum Conference. He said:
“We will endeavour to integrate biofuels into our oil industry. In the last 3 years, the Economic Development Board of Singapore has made considerable headway in the biofuels sector by jump-starting biodiesel manufacturing on Jurong Island. With these efforts, Singapore’s biodiesel production output is expected to exceed one million tons per annum by 2010, and reach three million tons per annum by 2015.”
I wonder where the feedstock for the biofuel manufacturing will come from. The question is not in the type of feedstock, but whether the plantations where the raw materials come from are planted in felled forest land. Would the government make sure that the feedstock came from plantations that are not the result of forest lost? Or are they going to take Malaysia’s head-in-the-ground stand and pretend oil palm plantations are forests? Would Singapore be willing to reject feedstock from such areas at the risk of a loss of revenue (given that Mr. Iswaran already said “protect existing carbon sinks such as the tropical rainforests of Asia”)? I await the results of the biodiesel manufacturing efforts.
Having given all those speeches, it is unfortunate, then, that Mr. Iswaran had to attend (and not object to) the F1 light-up during Earth Hour. This has probably led many to question the sincerity of his, and of the government’s commitment to energy-efficiency and being “responsible global citizens”. True enough, we are seeing letters being fired into forums and newspaper columns. And as far as I’ve seen, the government and Mr. Iswaran have again kept quiet. Earth Hour, while itself doesn’t actually save the world, is a symbolic gesture, to move masses to the conservation movement. It is ridiculous to simply look at one hour of savings versus the rest of the year. Symbolic gestures, are much like the one minute silence of remembrance, and should be respected. I’m not sure if the he knows that he had just trampled on the efforts of millions around the world, like a moron who bursts out laughing or jeering a one minute silence. During the event itself, Mr. Iswaran said the following:
“"The environmental concerns are legitimate. But you must keep them in perspective. You can't have an F1 race without noise. The cars make a lot of noise. In fact, it is part of the thrill for many fans and spectators.”
"But having said that, the F1 organisation is based in Europe where environmental consciousness is very high and they, as an organisation, have undertaken many measures to make sure they are minimising their carbon footprint, if not making it zero their carbon footprint. That's one part we should be paying attention to."
"The other element is that they are also undertaking various research efforts, for example in bio fuel and so on, to see how that can be adapted. So although the F1 is seen, at least in first blush, it might be anti-environment, there are many things they are doing that is actually pro environment,"
The environmentalists among us would have ripped his little comment to shreds in a minute. Formula One, with the fuel consumption, races all over the world, and long development process from prototype to the actual race car, means that they will probably never be carbon-neutral. Through R&D, what can be done is to reduce their carbon footprint, but making something less anti-environment is not the same as being pro-environment. The part on the biofuels is a bit dodgy as well, since we do not know how those fuels came about, as mentioned earlier. But don’t be mistaken. I’m not anti-Formula One. In fact I follow Formula One results. Like a lot of “bad” things (like weapons) Formula One is proof of mankind’s engineering ingenuity and mastery, and we should be proud of it. However, we also need these engineer-whizzes to put their heads to designing even more efficient engines as well.
I’m not sure how well-versed Mr. Iswaran is with environmental issues and both sides of the biofuels argument. However, to me, it seems that he needs some advice in this field. He’s MP of the area where I live, and at this rate, I’m not voting.
*Update: The Singapore GP organisers did reply to the complaints in the papers, but I still think that if they really wanted to, they would have moved it to a different time. Oh well, I'm not an economist, what do I know.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Love of Nature from Parents
I love reading, and especially love the feeling you get when the author makes a point so powerful, you feel like a train just ran over you. Here's an excerpt from Dr. Jane Goodall's book, Reason for Hope. It's a story that she's told time and again, whenever you attend her lectures, about her trying to find how how chickens lay their eggs as a child. In summary, she had hidden herself in the chicken coop for 4 hours at least, waiting for a hen to enter and lay an egg, while elsewhere, her family (especially her mother Vanne) were in hysterics, thinking that she had gone missing and had even made a police report. The following excerpt describes what happens after she had observed the egg-laying.
"Filled with excitement I squeezed out after her and ran home. It was almost dark--I had been in that small stuffy henhouse for nearly four hours. I was oblivious of the fact that no one had known where I was, and that the whole household had been searching for me. They had even called the police to report me missing. Yet despite her worry, when Vanne, still searching, saw the excited little girl rushing toward the house, she did not scold me. She noticed my shining eyes and sat down to listen to the story of how a hen lays an egg: the wonder of that moment when the egg finally fell to the ground.
Certainly I was lucky to be provided with a mother wise enough to nurture and encourage my love of living things and my passion for knowledge. Most important was her philosophy that her children should always try their very best. How would I have turned out, I sometimes wonder, had I grown up in a house that stifled enterprise by imposing harsh and senseless discipline. Or in an atmosphere of overindulgence, in a household where there were no rules, no boundaries drawn. My mother certainly understood the importance of discipline, but she always explained why some things were not allowed. Above all, she tried to be fair and to be consistent."
It really set me thinking, about parents in general here in Singapore. I have often seen that when children go missing and then found again, parents just whack them. No questions asked. No thought given to the fear, or excitement of discovery, such as in Jane's case, experienced by the child. Imagine Vanne had been one of such parents. Would there have been a Dr. Jane Goodall, the Jane Goodall Institute and everything that she has done? If we really thought deeply, all of those things, inspiration to us and people like me, the survival and profound ethology of chimps and the livelihood that she has made possible for thousands in Tanzania, all of those might have hinged on that one reaction by Vanne when Jane reappeared, and thank goodness for what did happen.
Conservation, and nature in Singapore, I feel suffers from a desperate lack of parental guidance. Sure there are a bunch of parents who bring their children to guided walks and things like that, but a vast majority bring their children up on a diet of materialism, and the belief that humans do not need wildlife (both plants and animals) for survival. Zoologists and botanists are conventionally thought of as biology students who cannot make it to medicine. How many parents out there wholeheartedly support their children when they say they want to study zoology instead of business or medicine or law? We need a massive change in mindsets.
"Filled with excitement I squeezed out after her and ran home. It was almost dark--I had been in that small stuffy henhouse for nearly four hours. I was oblivious of the fact that no one had known where I was, and that the whole household had been searching for me. They had even called the police to report me missing. Yet despite her worry, when Vanne, still searching, saw the excited little girl rushing toward the house, she did not scold me. She noticed my shining eyes and sat down to listen to the story of how a hen lays an egg: the wonder of that moment when the egg finally fell to the ground.
Certainly I was lucky to be provided with a mother wise enough to nurture and encourage my love of living things and my passion for knowledge. Most important was her philosophy that her children should always try their very best. How would I have turned out, I sometimes wonder, had I grown up in a house that stifled enterprise by imposing harsh and senseless discipline. Or in an atmosphere of overindulgence, in a household where there were no rules, no boundaries drawn. My mother certainly understood the importance of discipline, but she always explained why some things were not allowed. Above all, she tried to be fair and to be consistent."
It really set me thinking, about parents in general here in Singapore. I have often seen that when children go missing and then found again, parents just whack them. No questions asked. No thought given to the fear, or excitement of discovery, such as in Jane's case, experienced by the child. Imagine Vanne had been one of such parents. Would there have been a Dr. Jane Goodall, the Jane Goodall Institute and everything that she has done? If we really thought deeply, all of those things, inspiration to us and people like me, the survival and profound ethology of chimps and the livelihood that she has made possible for thousands in Tanzania, all of those might have hinged on that one reaction by Vanne when Jane reappeared, and thank goodness for what did happen.
Conservation, and nature in Singapore, I feel suffers from a desperate lack of parental guidance. Sure there are a bunch of parents who bring their children to guided walks and things like that, but a vast majority bring their children up on a diet of materialism, and the belief that humans do not need wildlife (both plants and animals) for survival. Zoologists and botanists are conventionally thought of as biology students who cannot make it to medicine. How many parents out there wholeheartedly support their children when they say they want to study zoology instead of business or medicine or law? We need a massive change in mindsets.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Shopping to Save the Earth?
I've been meaning to blog about this but I just have been too caught up with tests and thesis submission. Anyhow, I am referring to Compass Point's claim that it's shoppers can "Save Planet Earth" simply by shopping there. . Let's try and dissect the poster.
First, it says, if the shopper spends $20, he/she can "Share" eco-friendly tips. Apparently the "best" tip wins the shopper $120. The greatest irony is this: The best eco-friendly tip in reality is to stop mass-consumerism, shopping, and advertising. I'd be damned if that won you anything.
Going down the poster, it says "Learn to be Green", and by attaching a loan receipt of four books from Sengkang Community Library to any $20 receipt, it wins the shopper a monopoly set, and a chance at %100 Metro vouchers. First of all, it seems they left the learning to be green part to the shopper, without specifying the type of books. Heck, he could borrow 4 books along the lines of "How to destroy Planet Earth in 5 minutes" and still win everything on offer. In any case, Singaporeans being Singaporeans, they'd probably just borrow books for the Monopoly set. And it still doesn't address the consumerism problem.
The next three seem to look a little friendlier, but two of them still require you to spend. And honestly, "Saving Planet Earth" is a load of bull. Planet Earth would do well without us. More like saving ourselves. These corporate people should get their perspectives right.
Now we look at the wordy parts. "Carry it green at Compass Point". Apparently, you spend $30 dollars and get a free Compass Point Shopping Bag. So if you spend below $30 you don't qualify to join the Compass Point (Pseudo) Environment Club huh.
"Shop and Learn How You Can Save Planet Earth". And then it says you get a free $5 voucher when you spend $100, I think with that Compass Point Shopping bag. I honestly don't see the link between the title and it's description. Labelling everything green out of desperation I suppose.
"Lucky Green Dips". Instant lucky dip with $50 spent. How's that green again?
"Going Green Saves You More". Even more bizzare stuff. It says, bring your own carriers or containers to enjoy offers from some participating outlets. And then one of the outlets is Best Denki. IF you buy refridgerators. Sure, my Compass Point Shopping Bag can fit THOSE. CITIGEMS are participating too, and you get a diamond pendant at a hugely discounted price. Point number one. There is no such thing as a green diamond / precious metal mining company. Number two. Retailers don't discount at such rates unless they are sure they are still earning from it. Too bad to those who bought these lumps of metal and carbon at their original prices.
The one that takes the cake though, is the Grand Prize of their lucky draw. You get a CAR!! Spend all the money to be green, then burn it all away with the petrol! How smart!
In a nutshell. It's a scam. CASE should get on their backs. Token effort is given about being green, and it's just a bandwagon to jump on to generate sales of ignorant people who want to be on the same bandwagon with little effort. This a blatant attempt to DELIBERATELY mislead shoppers. There no way to shop to your way to "green-ness". Unless you are shopping to buy forest patches to protect. Which Compass Point and their Frasers Centrepoint management have obviously no interest in. It's like "Buy more cigarettes and learn how to prevent lung cancer!". Bunch of bull excreta.
First, it says, if the shopper spends $20, he/she can "Share" eco-friendly tips. Apparently the "best" tip wins the shopper $120. The greatest irony is this: The best eco-friendly tip in reality is to stop mass-consumerism, shopping, and advertising. I'd be damned if that won you anything.
Going down the poster, it says "Learn to be Green", and by attaching a loan receipt of four books from Sengkang Community Library to any $20 receipt, it wins the shopper a monopoly set, and a chance at %100 Metro vouchers. First of all, it seems they left the learning to be green part to the shopper, without specifying the type of books. Heck, he could borrow 4 books along the lines of "How to destroy Planet Earth in 5 minutes" and still win everything on offer. In any case, Singaporeans being Singaporeans, they'd probably just borrow books for the Monopoly set. And it still doesn't address the consumerism problem.
The next three seem to look a little friendlier, but two of them still require you to spend. And honestly, "Saving Planet Earth" is a load of bull. Planet Earth would do well without us. More like saving ourselves. These corporate people should get their perspectives right.
Now we look at the wordy parts. "Carry it green at Compass Point". Apparently, you spend $30 dollars and get a free Compass Point Shopping Bag. So if you spend below $30 you don't qualify to join the Compass Point (Pseudo) Environment Club huh.
"Shop and Learn How You Can Save Planet Earth". And then it says you get a free $5 voucher when you spend $100, I think with that Compass Point Shopping bag. I honestly don't see the link between the title and it's description. Labelling everything green out of desperation I suppose.
"Lucky Green Dips". Instant lucky dip with $50 spent. How's that green again?
"Going Green Saves You More". Even more bizzare stuff. It says, bring your own carriers or containers to enjoy offers from some participating outlets. And then one of the outlets is Best Denki. IF you buy refridgerators. Sure, my Compass Point Shopping Bag can fit THOSE. CITIGEMS are participating too, and you get a diamond pendant at a hugely discounted price. Point number one. There is no such thing as a green diamond / precious metal mining company. Number two. Retailers don't discount at such rates unless they are sure they are still earning from it. Too bad to those who bought these lumps of metal and carbon at their original prices.
The one that takes the cake though, is the Grand Prize of their lucky draw. You get a CAR!! Spend all the money to be green, then burn it all away with the petrol! How smart!
In a nutshell. It's a scam. CASE should get on their backs. Token effort is given about being green, and it's just a bandwagon to jump on to generate sales of ignorant people who want to be on the same bandwagon with little effort. This a blatant attempt to DELIBERATELY mislead shoppers. There no way to shop to your way to "green-ness". Unless you are shopping to buy forest patches to protect. Which Compass Point and their Frasers Centrepoint management have obviously no interest in. It's like "Buy more cigarettes and learn how to prevent lung cancer!". Bunch of bull excreta.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Educate her? She knows!
I refer to the letter on the Straits Times Forum Online posted below:
Feeding wildlife: Educate uninformed adults
I APPLAUD recent measures to punish those who feed wildlife in public parks.
I was at the Singapore Zoo last Friday with my young son and came upon a girl, perhaps no more than 10 years old, feeding twigs to the goats at Children's World, the children's section of the zoo.
Next to her was her mother and a prominent sign that reads 'No feeding'.
I gently reminded the woman of the notice board. Her retort? 'Everybody feeds the animals'.
Her child continued to feed the goat, which was lapping up whatever she was picking up from the ground. This clueless child will unfortunately grow up thinking her behaviour is perfectly acceptable.
The innocent child was not at fault. The parent, an educated adult, should have known better.
What more can be done when harsh penalties have been meted out on obstinate offenders?
More aggressive education is key, perhaps to both school-going children and misguided, uninformed adults.
Koh Wee Hoon (Ms)
I think Ms Koh is too kind. First of all, if you are a Singapore student of age 10 and cannot read and understand "No Feeding", then something is seriously wrong. Secondly, if everyone was doing something, it doesn't mean that it's the right thing.
Third, where were the zookeepers? Fourth, why didn't more people point her out? This reminds me of something Martin Luther King Junior once said, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people". The world is going to pot, precisely because of this.
Does the zoo have some kind of punishment for these? Feeding animals where you aren't allowed to feed them, and running the risk of feeding the wrong things to them should be dealt with as the equivalent of animal abuse (and if you ask me, the penalties for animal abuse isn't quite severe enough). Parents who blatantly ignore the signs should be fined on the spot. Children who see their parents ignore the rules and laws may grow up to believe that either their parents are above the law, or that some laws can be violated. Cutting their parents down to size would go along way to enforcing to children that the signs cannot be ignored.
Feeding wildlife: Educate uninformed adults
I APPLAUD recent measures to punish those who feed wildlife in public parks.
I was at the Singapore Zoo last Friday with my young son and came upon a girl, perhaps no more than 10 years old, feeding twigs to the goats at Children's World, the children's section of the zoo.
Next to her was her mother and a prominent sign that reads 'No feeding'.
I gently reminded the woman of the notice board. Her retort? 'Everybody feeds the animals'.
Her child continued to feed the goat, which was lapping up whatever she was picking up from the ground. This clueless child will unfortunately grow up thinking her behaviour is perfectly acceptable.
The innocent child was not at fault. The parent, an educated adult, should have known better.
What more can be done when harsh penalties have been meted out on obstinate offenders?
More aggressive education is key, perhaps to both school-going children and misguided, uninformed adults.
Koh Wee Hoon (Ms)
I think Ms Koh is too kind. First of all, if you are a Singapore student of age 10 and cannot read and understand "No Feeding", then something is seriously wrong. Secondly, if everyone was doing something, it doesn't mean that it's the right thing.
Third, where were the zookeepers? Fourth, why didn't more people point her out? This reminds me of something Martin Luther King Junior once said, "We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people". The world is going to pot, precisely because of this.
Does the zoo have some kind of punishment for these? Feeding animals where you aren't allowed to feed them, and running the risk of feeding the wrong things to them should be dealt with as the equivalent of animal abuse (and if you ask me, the penalties for animal abuse isn't quite severe enough). Parents who blatantly ignore the signs should be fined on the spot. Children who see their parents ignore the rules and laws may grow up to believe that either their parents are above the law, or that some laws can be violated. Cutting their parents down to size would go along way to enforcing to children that the signs cannot be ignored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
