The Unnatural Kingdom

I never got a reply about the word count, so I'll just assume that it's alright that I went over.

One of the methods mentioned in the article is the Relocation of certain members of a species to a different area, specifically pregnant females. Females with diverse genetics are brought to a different group of that species to repopulate elsewhere, allowing that different group to pass on their genes as well. For the purposes of the assignment, I’ll call this method “Maternal Relocation.” Another method mentioned in the article is what I’ll call “Predator Prevention.” The predators of a specific species are directly managed to benefit the species which they are hunting. If a single predator is found to be preying more heavily than conservationists deem safe for the hunted species, that predator is killed.

Both of these methods are meant, in all goodness, to save an endangered and human-loved species. Both methods also obviously require large amounts of human intervention in natural events, be it good or bad. They also both require large amounts of technology, like radar and GPS, to monitor animal activity. This requires a fairly large amount of data-crunching, as well as data analysis. Conservationists must consider many factors when deciding whether or not to implement either method.

But there are some key differences between the two methods. Maternal Relocation requires direct intervention with the species itself. If anything goes wrong, that could result in the death of one or more members of the species, bringing them even closer to extinction. Predator Prevention, on the other hand, requires the manipulation of the number of predators hunting the species. Different groups of animals are killed, without ever touching the species itself. It could be argued that an innocent animal is killed simply for attempting to survive in a harsh world. Predator Prevention also, obviously, involves the death of an animal, which is not featured in Maternal Relocation.

I believe that Maternal Relocation both has a greater chance of success and is more morally sound and acceptable than Predator Prevention. With Maternal Relocation, if conservationists deem that they incorrectly moved a number of animals, they can always relocate them again. You can’t reverse the death of an animal, as with Predator Prevention. There’s no saying that conservationists couldn’t make a mistake and accidentally kill off too many animals, possibly having dire consequences on the predator species. Additionally, animal rights groups would most likely not agree with the method, and possibly protest, which could further slow down programs attempting to protect endangered species.

Because of the Maternal Relocation method (which just-so-happens to be appropriate for this section,) groups of bighorn sheep that would not normally meet are being brought together to mate. Without human intervention, the California desert’s vast tracts of land and large mountains would have prevented sheep populations from mixing. Isolated groups would evolve separately from their also-isolated counterparts. Eventually, after thousands of years, their DNA would have become so different that they could not naturally produce fertile offspring together, essentially becoming different species. This phenomenon is referred to as geographic isolation. Maternal Relocation makes this nearly impossible, so groups of bighorn sheep will all have breed together at some point. This would not allow for enough time to pass for geographic isolation to truly occur. However, conservationists are attempting to artificially produce much-needed diversity by relocating pregnant females that have been found to be genetically diverse. While this is not necessarily as effective as natural geographic isolation, it’s certainly better than nothing.

The definition of a “wild” animal and the guidelines that may make it such are not entirely clear. I would personally define a wild animal as being an animal whose habitat and living space is not within a human-built area. This means that a lion living in a wildlife refuge center would not be a wild animal. A lion living on the African plains near a human settlement would be wild, because the humans are essentially living on the lion’ territory. It could, however, be argued that a wild animal is one that is not under the direct influence of humans. This would make the restored populations referenced in the article not wild. I would disagree with this, because although the restored populations are heavily influenced by humans, they still roam free, and are not fed by humans, nor do they rely on humans for their survival.

Topic 1 - Public Health

    Despite the numerous benefits of farming livestock, many facilities have created serious public health risks. The use of antibiotics in animals began in the 1940s in the poultry industry. These chemicals encourage growth and production in the animals. The use of antibiotics, however, also has produced a large number of antimicrobial bacteria. These bacteria, added with those from human antibiotic use, has resulted in cases of drug-resistant infections in humans, which are being more common at an alarming rate. This is also due to the increase in the use of antibiotics and growth hormones in livestock. Agricultural workers are believed to be the bridge for bacteria between the livestock and the general human population. Toxic gases and dusts in these facilities have also caused respiratory diseases for agricultural workers and those living nearby. In addition, many animal farming facilities are located in places unfit to handle large amounts of nutrients and pathogens resulting from the practice. Animal waste, when untreated, is harmful to the surrounding ecosystem. Runoff from these facilities also contains many dangerous chemicals, hormones, and heavy metals that leak into ecosystems, especially those in lakes and streams. The large amounts of energy used to maintain these facilities also produces a large strain on the environment.

    As time has passed and new technologies have been developed, the yield from animal farming has increased drastically. Rich countries demand more and more meat, requiring an even higher yield from these facilities. However, this rapid increase in the number of animal farming facilities has had a large negative impact on the environment, despite what economic benefits have been reaped. Only with strict guidelines and legislation can these facilities be managed and balanced, so that meat and animal product prices do not become too high for the consumer, while the environment is not harmed further.

    One solution is to encourage consumers to press for alternative factory practices. Factories rely on consumers to for their profits, and campaigns to pressure these companies into helping to protect the environment would greatly reduce the risk of having to shut down animal farming facilities due to environmental concerns. This has already happened with the public’s concern for animal welfare, however, this is only part of the problem; while assisting animals may be important, not changing the practices of these facilities will have an even greater effect on humans.

Citation:

• "Pollution from Giant Livestock Farms Threatens Public Health." NRDC. Natural Resources Defense Council, 21 Feb. 2013. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
• "Environmental Destruction." Vegan Outreach. Vegan Outreach, n.d. Web. 13 Jan. 2016. (Picture)

EROEI

1. The tar sands should be used before the oil shale because it has a higher EROEI. This means that we'll get a better energy return on the investment of mining, and possibly give more time for technology to develop that will allow for easier extraction of oil shale.

2. Both tar sands and oil shale must be heated at some point in order to extract the oil.

3. When oil shale is heated, it turns directly into crude oil and natural gas. Tar sands, on the other hand, create bitumen when heated, which must be refined into usable oil.

4. It will take a long time for renewable energy sources to fully replace fossil fuels as the nation's main energy source. Energy must be produced during this time. If off shore drilling were to be banned, energy companies would be forced to buy oil from outside sources in other countries. This oil could be less carbon efficient than that which could be mined from off shore drilling.

5. Say that I wanted to eat lunch one day. I have, in general, two options; I could make something for myself, or go out and buy something. Making pasta or a grilled cheese for myself isn't very difficult. I would also no longer be hungry, though I may not be terribly satisfied, as when I make food for myself, it's generally one of about four meals. Going out for lunch, on the other hand, would be somewhat difficult. I would either have to get somebody to drive me or have to drive myself. This would use up gas, and the lunch I buy will likely be more expensive than my food at home. However, I would be more satisfied with this meal, because it was made by someone else and probably tastes better than what I make, along with the general factor of variety. Staying at home costs very little energy, but only has a moderate return in terms of happiness. Going out costs a lot of energy, but also has a large happiness return. I usually end up staying home (mostly because I don't have a license anyways.)