A Summary of Sandra Steingraber’s “Living Downstream”

Sandra Steingraber was diagnosed with bladder cancer as a young adult. People might shake their heads and think it is genetic if she had said it runs in her family, but what if she told you that she was adopted? Steingraber explores this fact and goes on to describe “a study of cancer among adoptees that found correlations within their adoptive families but not within their biological ones.” Most people who said it was genetic would draw a blank stare, and then—silence. These silences illuminate some hard facts, how some people are unaware that families not only share similar genetic traits but, more often than not, share the same environments as well.

What struck Steingraber was the volume of science research that focused on genetic mutations as a cause for cancer. For Steingraber, there had to be more than just genetics. Naturally intrigued, she began to research articles that document the genetic changes associated with bladder cancer. Even with all the information we have gathered about genetic mutations, we still fall short in finding an effective solution to prevent the disease. The rate of bladder cancer has risen 10% between the years 1973 and 1979, with significant prominence from the African American population. And while it is believed that cigarette smoking may account for a third of all cases, the most apt question is what is causing cancer in the rest of the population who do not smoke? Steingraber’s research evaluated the known and suspected carcinogens, “their sources, their possible interactions with each other, and our various routes of exposure to them.” What she lacked was conclusive evidence in how these substances interact with each other.

Most cancer research, at the moment, tends to deal with the heretical nature of the disease. The approach focuses on genetic testing which tries to identify genes that are most susceptible to cancer, and the individual’s risk of cancer. Steingraber, however, exclaims that hereditary cancers are not the norm, as “fewer than 10 percent of all malignancies are thought to involve inherited mutations.” When heredity is not deemed as the main cause, cancers are classified as “sporadic” to describe the rest. The evidence suggests that the location of a cancer gene will “not prevent the vast majority of cancers that develop.” What often occurs is that people who carry a cancer gene are more at risk as environmental factors exacerbate the potential risk for malignancy.

The crux of the issue when it comes to cancer genes is that we cannot change who our ancestors are, and focusing the issue on inheritance which we can do nothing about rather than external factors which could be in our control. We are carrying, from the past, carcinogens that are no longer in use but are still present in our bodies. It important that we find and explore the root cause that may stem from our previous use of chemicals in neighborhoods and the products we use. This, in essence, is a search for our ecological roots. The current system of regulation of carcinogenic substances is intolerable; rather, we must prevent the generation instead. Steingraber advises that we choose the least harmful way when solving problems which inexplicably correlates with the “least toxic alternative.”

Should there be more effort to study the links between cancer and environmental factors?

Yes, with Steingraber’s research and personal anecdotes, there does seem to be correlation with cancer and external factors that are not related to genetics or heredity. Everywhere around us, the use of chemicals in our food and water are prevalent. We still carry trace elements of pesticides in us since Rachel Carson exposed the world to the dangers of their use. What else can be affecting our health that may lead to malignancies causing death? By only focusing on genetic mutations of cancer cells, we are limiting the scope of possibilities that may be a root cause to our dilemmas.

Steingraber, Sandra. “Living Downstream: An Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the                                           Environment.” Sources: Selection in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United                     States, 2014. 153-157.

A Summary of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment’s “Ecosystems and Human Well-being”

Everyone depends on earth's ecosystems and services: food water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual fulfillment, and aesthetic enjoyment. But over the last 50 years, we have drastically changed these ecosystems more than in any period of history just to meet these demands. Although this change has been met with increasing economic and standards of living, it has also harmed many regions and groups of people in the process.

There are three problems which are associated with the management of the world’s ecosystems that affectively harm the livelihood of people—in particular, the poor. Firstly, 60% of ecosystem services examined are used unsustainably which include “fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water purification, and the regulation of regional and local climate, natural hazards, and pests.” Although these losses are extremely hard to measure, the surrounding evidence suggests they are substantial and increasing. Secondly, “there is established but incomplete evidence” that changes in ecosystems are consequently affecting and influencing the state of other ecosystems that have ramifications for human well-being. Thirdly, the effects of a degraded ecosystem are being borne mostly be the poorest of peoples, and are “contributing to growing inequities and disparities across groups of people, and are sometimes the principal factor causing poverty and social conflict”

The goals set forth by the international community in achieving the Millenium Development Goals reached in September 2000 are already hindered by the degradation of ecosystem services, and the extent of this degradation can grow worse over the next 50 years. Many driving forces of ecosystem change are unlikely to diminish by 2050, especially climate change and nutrient loading which will be more pronounced in years to come. People most reliant on ecosystem services, particularly the rural poor, face the biggest challenge as it is unlikely that these goals are sustainable when these services are degraded.

The problems arise from the many challenges we face today and are exacerbated by the interconnected of the situation. Actions to curb or reverse the degradation has shown some results, but they inevitably have not kept up with current demands. There are preliminary discussions to stop degradation in the coming decades: changes in policies, institutions, and practices “can mitigate some but not all of the negative consequences of growing pressures on ecosystems” but they are not implemented at the moment It will take a collected effort and an integration of ecosystem management goals in a wide range of sectors and a new way of thinking if we are to instill some change for a sustainable future.

There have been many benefits from the changes made to the world’s ecosystems, primarily when it comes to meeting the demands for food and water. Agricultural gains, which include fisheries and forestry, have provided a means to feed a world with an increasing population, but the destruction inflicted on the ecosystem is unsustainable and have been exhausted and are often borne by the people of impoverished nations. The necessary steps we must take to ensure a more sustainable world will ultimately depend on evaluating humanity’s connection with ecosystems.

In what ways does damage to ecosystems affect human well-being?

Humanity and Earth’s ecosystems are deeply connected on a symbiotic level. We rely on thriving ecosystems as a source of food, water, and materials. We depend on Earth’s biological processes to sustain life. When we take liberties and exploit ecosystems for personal gain, it often affects people in the lowest stratum of economic stability in the world. Oftentimes, the poor bear the brunt of this carelessness, as we destroy natural habitats which threaten the ecosystems they rely on. Because many peoples are located on coastal regions, overfishing is an example that takes food away and their ability to survive as marine ecosystems are slowly being depleted of fish. Resources are being harvested by more affluent societies, primarily at the consequence of the poor. When we damage ecosystems in the search for these resources, humanity as a whole feels the blight from these atrocities.

Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-being.” Sources: Selection                  in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 53-59.

Blog Questions

Consider your food system: What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it? Consider taste, nutrition, cost, equity, and environmental issue.

My food system is predicated upon one word: convenience. Although I try not to eat a lot of fast food and try to avoid an unhealthy diet, I do eat out a lot. My groceries are bought at large supermarkets, primarily because the cost is so much cheaper. I cannot tell the difference in taste in nutrition from local farms to mass markets. I hate the idea that the meat I buy came from large animal farms that do not provide their livestock with an adequate way of life, but cost and convenience is definitely a determining factor. These supermarkets transit a huge bulk of their inventory via trucking systems which increase the amount of CO2 being placed into the atmosphere. I know that by buying locally I can reduce my environmental impact, but sometimes I am of that mindset that my choices—if I were to change—will have virtually no impact whatsoever.

What role, if any, should zoos play in conservation/education? Is it ethical to keep animals in zoos? If so, what size / type of animal or zoo? Do you enjoy visiting zoos?

I believe that zoos can play a very important role in conservation and educating people about animals in the wild. It is, however, difficult to accomplish in a manner that is ethically sound when providing a proper habitat and way of life for these animals. Elephants should not be kept in zoos, as it is clearly evident that elephants live longer in the wild than in captivity. I am not sure what animals might benefit from an artificial habitat; the best, I would assume, would be some birds, reptiles, and fish and other marine animals. The larger the animal, the more adequate housing and resources needed to provide proper care for the animal. Keeping animals in captivity definitely draws a fine line that divides two ends of the spectrum: one might reason that animals, especially endangered animals need protection (and some zoos advocate in restoring these species in hopes they will one day return to the wild); another might reason that the best way to promote care for animals in the wild is to educate and view them in captivity. I have been to three zoos in my lifetime: Assiniboine Park Zoo, the Kansas City Zoo, and a zoo in Brisbane, Australia. Some of these were kind of deplorable, and I felt bad for these animals (the cheetah exhibit in Kansas City was so enclosed that the animals were never able to run if they wanted to), and others were great experiences where I learned a lot and got to interact with animals native to the country (the zoo in Brisbane). Nonetheless, the argument whether zoos do more harm than good is an issue that will be continued to be argued for many years to come.

What I am doing to promote sustainability and happiness in my life?

In the past year, I have already made some major changes that, I think, have affected my lifestyle for the better. With the hopes of living a more sustainable lifestyle and reducing my environmental impact, I moved into a smaller place that still accommodates my needs. I try not buy extravagant things anymore without making a conscious decision whether I need it or not. I have been accustomed to buying used things now, and have liquidated many of my assets as well. In the past year, I have also tried to rely more on public transportation and carpooling, and have started riding motorbikes as an alternative to driving a vehicle.

What I would like to do?

I would like to continue and live as I currently do, and have others be able to follow suit. Education is the most important thing to promote a conscious connection to the environment, and I intend to pass the message along. I would also like to shop more locally, and be able to eat healthier as well. Composting, being important as it is, will be another practice I will begin in order to live a more sustainable and environmentally friendly lifestyle.

I pledge to: do my best to reduce my carbon footprint in the world, and encourage others to do the same.

E.O. Wilson’s "My Wish: Build the Encyclopedia of Life," a TED Talk

E.O. Wilson begins his lecture with a plea to humanity: “If we were to wipe out insects alone, just that group alone, on this planet—which we are trying hard to do—the rest of life and humanity with it would mostly disappear from the land.” It is certainly a grave statement to begin a lecture, but one that has merit.

            As Wilson grew up, he became fascinated with the diversity of life on Earth. From butterflies to snakes, birds to fish, and many other assortment of animals, he found his calling as a biologist. With the variety of life in the world, and what it means for us as a species as a whole, he reflected on how little we understand it and the dangers our practices imposes on the natural world. When he was seven years old, he was blinded in the eye by a pinfish, and coupled with his difficulty in hearing, he dedicated his life as a naturalist to the very small—insects. Insects, according to Wilson, “compose the foundation of our ecosystems, the little things . . . who run the world.”

            The discoveries humanity has made in the last thirty years demonstrates how little we know about life on this planet. Bacteria alone, in a ton of soil, contains nearly four million species that are yet unknown. The purposeful nature of these bacteria we do not know. But with the advancement of genomic technology, we are able to sequence genetic codes and find out more with our connection to life on Earth. We may ultimately depend on these species of bacteria for survival, but unbeknownst to us the importance to our ecosystems, we may be “destroying them with ingenuity and ceaseless energy.”

            What Wilson exclaims is that we are destroying the biosphere by a combination of factors that follows the acronym “HIPPO”: Habitat destruction, Invasive species, Pollution, Population, Over-harvesting. If humanity continues at its current rate, half of the surviving animal and plants species alive today can be extinct by end of the 21^st century; climate change can force a quarter of surviving species into extinction within five decades. We stand to lose many scientific discoveries that may very well be our solution to many of life’s burdens today if this happens.

            The result can be cataclysmic: many mass extinctions in the past have occurred already, and do we want to be part of the next one? There must be a sense of urgency to study the biosphere. Until we feel confident we know what all life has to offer, we will not be able to competently tend to the survival of the planet. Wilson implores the listeners to begin a new chapter, one where we “inspire preservation of Earth’s biodiversity.” Let’s call it the “Encyclopedia of Life.” Let’s make this information accessible to anybody willing to look for it. The practical application of this knowledge can create a world that will transcend the human consciousness. It can encourage the wonders of science that will benefit all realms of society, and it can inspire a whole generation that views all life on Earth as a whole.

Reflection

A call to science in order to discover the mysteries of this world and our growing connection to this planet has been proposed by many like-minded thinkers before. E.O. Wilson drives this point home: every single organism on Earth has a right to survival as do our own human species. The fact that every biological organism shares the same genetic structure is something to marvel at. The evolution of life on Earth is so highly improbable that it is hard to be ungrateful when you view life from the scope the size of the universe. It is our duty, as Wilson points, to understand the meanings and practicalities while we still can. With the current rate of extinction on this planet, there may very well be a solution to many of the fears and doubts that predicate our society. A loss of a species can have an irreparable impact to Earth’s natural order, so it is better to preserve and conserve what little we have before it is too late to make a difference.

A Summary of Vitousek, Mooney, and Melillo’s “Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems”

            Environmental degradation only used to occur on a local scale, but with the onset of increasing globalization, the impact on the environment and biodiversity has reached an unprecedented level. In Vitousek, Mooney, and Melillo’s “Human Domination,” they give a brief overview to “the extent to which human activity has exerted a global impact on the Earth’s ecosystems.” The extent is enormous: over 50% of Earth’s land surface is transformed by humans, increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, half of the freshwater is already being used, 25% of bird species are going extinct, and many other consequences as a result of human influence. Humans modify their environment like every species, but the extent of which has grown significantly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

            There is no place on Earth where mankind has left no imprint. Everywhere we go, and just the daily routines of our everyday lives, we see the impact man has had on the world. Land transformation is the most impactful of mankind’s alteration of Earth. We shape the terrain in order to foster practices of agriculture to feed ourselves, and divert waterways to construct buildings and houses, but in consequence, we destroy biodiversity by displacing native species from their natural habitats—the “primary driving force in the loss of biological diversity worldwide.” It is hard to quantify the effect man has on the land, but there is no arguing that there is an effect.

            Oceans are even harder to measure. With more than 60% of the human population situated near the coast, the environmental impact man has contributed to the oceans may result in dire circumstances for these populations. Wetlands, which act as filtering agents for larger waterways, are slowly disappearing and exacerbating the detrimental effects of natural ecosystems. The unsustainable practices of fishing top predators has dramatically altered the natural qualities of the ocean. The overexploitation of ocean fisheries as they fish near or at capacity can propel the life of the ocean into disrepair.

            What is even more troublesome is the alteration of the biogeochemical cycles on Earth. The mining and burning of fossil fuels has increased global temperatures dramatically and inexplicably affected climate since the industrial era. Coupled with the destruction of grasslands and the practice of deforestation, it is becoming harder to sequester the carbon in the atmosphere. Water is becoming more crucial as the amount of freshwater from aquifers is being slowing depleted as water tables are not able to recharge with rainwater. We create dams and reservoirs to harness a source of energy and divert water from their natural systems. Utilizing the power of nitrogen as fertilizer and the use of pesticides are only a number of other ways mankind has affected the world’s ecosystems.

            Extinction is inevitable; survival is the exception—and the current pace is inexcusable. The introduction and spread of invasive species has severely crippled the ecosystem for those species native and natural to the land. The consequences of our actions is not something we have to deal with eventually, it is something to deal with now. The ongoing change is accelerated by our actions. What Vitousek et al. suggests as solutions requires a sense of urgency: we must reduce the rate in which we alter the Earth, place an added effort to understand Earth’s ecosystems and its numerous components of global change, and place the onus on mankind in responsibly managing the planet. If we act now, humanity may still have a fighting chance.

Would it help to reduce the human impact on the Earth if we could reduce the human population?

Yes, reducing the human population will have a direct impact in reducing the human impact on Earth. With a lower population, basic necessities needed to survive will require a lower level of resources. With fewer mouths to feed, the more sustainable our food sources can become. At the current rate we have exhausted many of Earth’s resources that are unreplenishable. We are draining aquifers faster than rainwater can restore them, even mining the water deeper below. All in all, there has to be a human capacity to life on Earth (although there is no definite number), and it is better to be cautious than to unwillingly cross it to a point of no return. 

Works Cited

Peter M. Vitousek, Harold A. Mooney, and Jerry M. Melillo. “Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 45-52.

A Summary of Vandana Shiva’s “Women’s Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation”

Gender plays a pivotal role in our everyday lives. Some people choose to ignore it, but the disparity of sex and the inequality between men and women is inherently evident in society today. What Vandana Shiva argues in this article is that gender also plays a role in the environmental policies and practices of the present: they are inexplicably linked to a notion that women are subservient to men, and subject to the hierarchy of patriarchy that is prevalent today.

As early as history seems to dictate, women have played a lesser role to men in society. They were unequal, treated unfairly, and scapegoated as the reason of sin and suffering in the world. Shiva links these ideas together, and views the ideology of patriarchy as a reasoning in why humanity has chosen to neglect and displace different species in the biological world. The result is a loss of biodiversity as patriarchal models push “towards monocultures, uniformity and homogeneity.” The result is a system where the “marginalization of women and the destruction of biodiversity go hand in hand.”

In Third World countries, communities rely on biological resources as a source of economic prosperity. Biodiversity, therefore, becomes a means of production. These communities make their living by using aspects of conservation and sustainable practices in order to survive. These practices, however, are often seen as primitive compared to the practices we are accustomed to and are “displaced by progressive technologies that destroy both diversity and people’s livelihoods.” In these countries, agricultural responsibilities are dominated by women’s work; however, these responsibilities are often ignored. The various jobs of women that relates to inside and outside the household cannot be tacitly measured in wages or salaries. It often goes unnoticed while women provide the means of sustainability for families and communities.

In many cultures, women have played an important role in the conservation of biodiversity. But seeing that women are marginalized in the agricultural sector, the concern about biodiversity, in this sense, stems from the resistance to the expansion of monocultured-based agricultural production: “crop uniformity . . . undermines the diversity of biological systems which form the production system as well as the livelihoods of people whose work is associated with diverse and multiple-use systems of forestry, agriculture and animal husbandry.” Farms are fragmented as a patriarchal model based on maximizing profits enters into the fold. The traditional roles of women in these communities are brushed aside as a new way of living emerges—one that chooses to neglect the importance and need for a biodiverse world.

Biodiversity has intrinsic value: “women produce through biodiversity, whereas corporate scientists produce through uniformity.” The increasing technological advancements in agriculture, Shiva argues, have displaced women’s roles in rural communities in India. Where the traditional roles of women were seen as custodians of the land, they are now seen as consumers who need to subsist off the product. This new model of agriculture, under a patriarchal hierarchy, chooses to undermine the importance of women in these communities, and pushes towards a practice that is complacent in its destruction of a biodiverse world.

In what sense, according to Vandana Shiva, is Third World women’s work in agriculture “invisible”?

Because gender inequality exists in the developed world, it comes as no surprise that women are marginalized in the Third World as well. It is especially true given the circumstances of agriculture of rural communities in India. Women’s work is not viewed as important in these societies. Their work is often neglected, trivialized, and ousted as a new form of technology displaces their traditional duties of the household. Not only have women’s work in these agricultural communities lost their importance, the work in and around the home go unrecognized as well; raising children, cooking and cleaning, are all jobs that cannot be tacitly measured in wages or salaries. Time allocated to the completion of these tasks are crucial to the lives under the household.

Works Cited

Shiva, Vandana. “Women's Indigenous Knowledge and Biodiversity Conservation” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 200-203.

A Summary of Lester R. Brown’s “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilizations?"

           With the continued growth of world populations, the issue of sustaining food quantities to feed the world is of increasing concern. Issues concerning food have been espoused before, and the themes argued by Brown implicitly evokes a Malthusian way of thinking. The demand for food will grow faster than we are able to supply it, and the yield loss of crops will continue to be exacerbated by environmental issues such as shortages of fresh water, eroding top soils, and climate change.          

            We project the future relying on past trends. The trends culminated from global agriculture, population, environmental and economic factors—Brown argues—coupled with “the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies.” The growing severity of environmental degradation that will lead to food shortages—factors such as falling water tables, eroding soils, and rising temperatures—has led Brown to believe that catastrophic collapse of global civilization is possible. States fail when governments are unable to provide the basic freedoms and necessities that we have known to become the norm in developed countries: access to food, security, education, and healthcare—all things we take for granted today.

Part of this trend includes the increase of world populations, demand for livestock products which contributes to grain yield, and “massive diversion of U.S. grain to ethanol fuel distilleries.” As developing countries become more affluent, an extra demand for grain follows. In first world countries such as the U.S. and Canada, the consumption of grain is consumed “indirectly as meat, milk, and eggs from grain-fed animals”, nearly 90%. A large portion of grain is also diverted for use of fuel in automobiles which is a portion that can feed half a billion people in India alone.

The shortage of water poses the most significant threat to the collapse of the food supply. The challenge is irrigation and, at the moment, we are pumping water out of aquifers faster than rainwater can recharge them. The result is falling water tables, and the subsequent procedure to gather water for irrigation requires drawing water from deeper aquifers which are not replenishable. With the lack in yield of grain from falling water tables, more nation states will have to import their grain elsewhere in order to support the growing population. With the diminishing returns due to shortage of water and loss of topsoil, the inaccessibility of food is sure to arise which will lead to increasing social conflict.

            Crops currently grow at the near or thermal optimum. As climate change has an increasingly profound effect in rises in temperature, it will correspondingly diminish and shrink the harvest of grains and crops. Past technologies that significantly have increased the yield of crops have already reached their limits with no further increases in the production of grain. The political landscapes begin to shift when there are growing concerns in the ability to feed its citizens. Countries acting in their own self-interests are exacerbating the plight of the poorest demographic which leads to a cycle of lawlessness.

            What Brown argues for is Plan B, what he calls “our only option.” Because the circumstances of world food shortage is trend-driven, the environmental trends that lead to the exacerbation of the predicament must be reversed. It requires strict measures and a sharp decline from the way things are handled now. It consists of four components:

-          Cut carbon emission by 80% from 2006 levels by 2020

-          The stabilization of the world population of 8 billion by 2040

-          Eradication of poverty

-          Continued restoration of forests, soils, and aquifers

Measures such as banning global deforestation, issuing a carbon tax, a shift to smaller family sizes, basic education, a focus on family planning, are prudent measures if we are too live in a sustainable world. Restoring natural earth systems and resources is a global effort, one that would take a united front from all nations around the world. Time is the scarcest resource. Brown’s Plan B not only calls for a drastic overall to our current aspects of living, but for the implementation of these practices in order to achieve these goals quickly. It will take a new way of thinking, of challenging the preconceptions of what we find important today.

According to Lester Brown, demand for food is growing faster than the supply. What are the effect of this trend likely to be? How can we prevent the worst effect?

The increasing growth of human population will accelerate the demand for food as world nations desperately try to feed its citizens. If there is exponential growth around the world, communities around the world will have to find new innovative ways to increase the yield of crops in order to provide food security for its population. In a perfect world, food insecurity is non-existent; however, the world is far from perfect, and places where poverty and hunger run rampant, crimes rates skyrocket upwards and governments corrupt. These nation states will serve as a microcosm for the whole global community if we do not finds ways to prevent this from happening. The best thing to do to ensure a better way of living is through education, family planning, and less harmful means of agriculture and a smarter way to manage resources.

Works Cited

Brown, Lester R. “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilizations?” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies. Ed. Thomas Easton. United States, 2014. 139-144.