Ultimate Survival Unit Reflection

Reflect on what has helped you in understanding the "big idea" of the unit. 
(Big Idea:  Students will understand the use and management of natural resources, the transformation of resources into human capital, goods, tools and machines as well as sustainable development of human society to maintain the delicate balance between man and the natural environment.)


What helped understand the most were the different exercises and especially projects that we did. Every little thing that we did in class during this unit was like a small piece of a large jigsaw puzzle. When we did projects, we each focused on a small area but as we listened to other presentations our imaginary puzzle got "solved" a bit more. This unit felt a lot like two separate units but then when I reflected back on it and thought more deeply about it, I finally saw the strong connections between the two parts. The movies filled up "holes" in the imaginary puzzle very well too. Seeing what the theory actually looks like in real life was very useful.



Reflect on the unit question (What is a necessity and how does an organism ensure survival of its species within its environment?) and how it relates to the unit title:  Ultimate Survival. 


Well, all creatures need energy to survive.  This energy begins with the sun which sends rays at Earth. Then plants also known as producers use photosynthesis to convert the solar energy into nutrients. This is where the first part of competition begins as the plants have to fight for getting the most sunlight. Then many plants are successful but the next level in the energy pyramid happens. Animals come to eat the plants to earn the energy that the plants have earned from the sun previously. It is a necessity for them to intake the energy and therefore they are willing to compete for the energy contained inside the plants. Some plants protect themselves from those animals such as being poisonous, having sharp ends of leaves, and many more. Once the primary consumers have taken in the energy, there will be secondary consumers which will want to eat them.  Now the primary consumers will have to adapt to survive and not get eaten by the predators. Some adaptations that they can use are mimicry, camouflage,  etc. Then when the secondary consumers eat the primary consumers, they can use the same adaptations to avoid getting eaten by tertiary consumers. People would use things that they found in nature to protect themselves from predators. But later they found out that if they took more than needed then their lives would become more comfortable and that they could become stronger, being the ultimate consumers. Nature can't support those actions well enough and that is why we leave such  a large footprint unlike other creatures on this planet.



How did the unit question allow us to view survival through The Area of Interaction: Environments:(FOR EXAMPLE:  The effects of one environment on another, the roles our environments play in the lives and well-being of humankind, and the effects of our actions, attitudes and constructs, such as sustainable development and conservation.) 


Well, all of those things such as the way creatures and the environment effect each other is an example of adaption. Animals and the environment interact together and change each other slightly. But back to the human effect, we humans change the environment more than we should. We take what we want and what make us happier, blind of how bad the side effects of our actions are. We tend to be happy as long as we have what we want and not care of what matters which is what we are doing to our planet. It is the only planet that we can live on but we keep destroying it.


What would you have liked to do more of?  Less of?  


I think that this unit was balance out very well. We did a bit of normal work and then changed to doing a bit of creative work. Maybe we could have less written reflections and more verbal reflections. When we have to write a reflection it tends to be lower quality as we don't have anyone to discuss it with and we tend to rush it just to get it out of the way already. When we do it verbally, we share ideas more, rush it less and get a better understanding as we contribute together to "solve the puzzle".



In your point of view, how well did we investigate the unit question, concept, and area of interaction?  Include this in your reflection as well and give specific examples to support your opinions


I think that we managed to investigate the topic very well. We looked at it from many different angles of the topic (adaptations, the human footprint, etc.). We investigated what the problems were and what solutions there were (for example the packaging project). Overall it was a very long unit but that allowed us to do it properly and achieve full understanding of all the concepts.

Letter to Packaging Project Company

Dear Nike company,


I recently purchased a pair of shoes from your 6.0 series. Then I chose to use the packaging for a science project where we studied well, packaging. At first sight, your shoe-boxes look pretty average. When looked at closer, they do not seem to be recyclable due to the shiny coating covering the box. Then I decided to go on a site mentioned on the box: www.considereddesign.com . There I found quite a few interesting things such as that you make courts for sport from the soles of old shoes. I really like that idea. It shows many other improvements in ecology that you have taken and it looks like it's a pretty big thing in your company. My question is though, if there has been any ecological changes to th 6.0 series.


Sincerely, Anonymous

Food, Inc Reflection

After watching Food Inc, what are your impressions of how science of food industry, technology of food industry, and society are interrelated?  

Well the movie didn't change my thoughts much, it just enforced them. We as a society are completely changing Earth to suit our needs and as the society grows bigger, its needs do too. It is no surprise that we are now taking such bad care of animals if you think about how many other things we are doing to our planet already. The problem is that you cannot change nature without getting side effects which can be pretty dangerous. For example when people started feeding corn to cows instead of grass. Cows aren't "built" for eating corn and so they couldn't digest it properly. After that, harmful e-coli started forming in their stomachs. When they excreted waste, the e-coli was included in it and if it wasn't washed off the cows properly enough, it could be very dangerous and even lethal once a part of the meat. Producing food the "wrong" way is much cheaper than doing it the "right" way. This is a strong motivation for doing things the "wrong" way as people tend to prefer getting more money from doing the "right" thing. 

How did the film describe science & technology as a positive or negative impact on society or the environment?  

In most parts, Food, Inc is sending a clear message that technology and science have a bad effect on food and do not belong in the area of food making. It shows videos of how bad the conditions on farms and in butcheries are these days. It has the positive effects of faster and cheaper food making which allows cheaper food and therefore creates a "win-win" situation. The problem is as I mentioned before that sometimes it becomes a "win-lose" situation. An example of this was the case of Kevin. The involvement of science and technology in food making caused his early death because he ate a hamburger that contained lethal e-coli.

How do our consumer choices affect what is out on the market and therefore, our own species survival?  

The supply meets the demand. That means that if we demand(buy) higher quality food from real farms more will be supplied and vice-versa. Also if we demand(buy) less cheap, poorly made food, less of it will be supplied. The problem is that the "wrong" choice is cheaper and therefore people will choose it more often as today money means more than ever before. The low quality food can  also have a fancier package but that changes nothing about how bad for you it is compared to real bio food.

How are we as humans connected to how the Earth is used?  

Earth is the only place where we can possible live. Most creatures live very sustainable but we humans keep taking more than we really need. We also change everything to suit our needs which is destroying Earth pretty fast. Not only do we abuse our planet, we abuse it a lot. We are like a group of unstoppable consumers that keeps taking but won't give. If we don't stop being so self-centered then there is only one end, and nobody is going to like it.

A few ideas that popped up in conversation throughout the movie were:  

• The companies have become much stronger than the consumers
• There is almost no way to escape it
• The supply meets the demand
• Treating animals like that should be illegal
• etc, etc, etc,

When do we say "no" to more high tech devices and go back to what caused the problem in the first place?  Why are we only into the "HOW" things work and not the "WHY" things don't?  What did this farmer mean? 

I think that he meant that people simply keep improving their technologies to be become faster and cheaper. There is a problem though, they don't look at why and what problems they are having. As long as you can get bigger, those problems don't matter because you are a bit richer again. Instead if we just looked at the problem we began with which was farming, we could find better solutions than we are using today but the big companies don't want to look back because everything runs so smoothly when you can do it the "wrong" way.

What is the difference between natural farming and industrial farming?  Which is better?  Are they both necessary for human survival?  Why or why not? 

Natural farming is farming as we know it mostly from stories and movies. It's about letting the animals live almost as if they were free, letting them feed on grass, letting them walk around freely, etc. Industrial farming is what is the most common but what people try to hide away from you.  It's a system that is cruel to the animals but tends to get the most out of them for the lowest price. They both have certain benefits but Food, Inc seems to be sending a clear message that the first one is better. Humans could survive on both even thought it would be harder on natural farming as it is less productive than industrial farming. It is more ecological though. 

If technology and industry have improved so much that we are getting faster, fatter, bigger, and cheaper, how are science and technology held responsible for improving or ruining human health and survival? 

As I have mentioned many times already, Food, Inc sends a clear message that technology is ruining our food. The food might be more perfect at first sight but if you take your time to actually study the food then you will find out that it is actually far from perfect It might make the animals "faster, fatter, bigger, and cheaper" but it makes as only fatter and cheaper in a sense as it shows how easily we can be bribed with a lower price.

What economic costs, environmental costs, ethical costs, health costs, and cultural costs did you observe while watching the film?  



Well, the animals aren't made to go through what we do to them. This causes them to be unhealthy. This ruins the environment. But people knowing about your methods could ruin your reputation and so you will have to pay some ethical costs to hide that. If people don't know about how bad and unreliable your products are, they will buy them and possibly become sick. That is the health cost. The cultural cost is that using certain methods you can make your food so cheap that it is the most economic but possibly also the least healthy choice for your customers. 



Finally, state your final thoughts about this film and any changes you see happening in the food industry in the future or even your own eating habits.   


The film was very understandable and could be very helpful for opening up the eyes of people that aren't aware of what's happening. Unfortunately, it wasn't strong enough to effect my eating habits much and sadly to say, I won't stop being a normal customer.

   

Green Plastics

How are these plastics being developed?


Regular plastics are carbon based, or in other words made out of oil. However, bio-plastics are made out of sugar cane, sugar corn, sugar beets etc. This is an advantage for the bio-plastics as are oil resources are running low as we use them much faster than they take to be produced. Farming corn, sugar cane, beets and other similar plants is very easy and can be done in a short time especially with the newest technologies which allow us to grow the plants that I mentioned above in numbers that very unimaginable before.




What makes these plastics "green?"


Well, to star off with, they are produced out of common crops unlike other plastics which are produced out of oil which is running out very fast. Crops aren't exactly a renewable resource either but they are closer to renewable to oil. Another thing is that unlike the common carbon-based
plastics, the green plastics are bio-degradable. That means that you can throw them into the compost and they will easily fall apart and become a part of the soil for the plants, restarting/continuing the cycle of the "life" of bio-plastic. Carbon-based plastic is almost "immortal" when it comes to bio-degrading. 



What are some issues with plastics that were mentioned?

As always, there is a pretty important problem with the excellent idea. Bio-plastics are very eco-friendly as I mentioned above. The problem that we have to face and hopefully solve now is that the process of the making of those plastics isn't exactly ecological. First, we would need extra space to grow the extra crops. This could could easily cause destruction of nature for the sake of mankind having their way. When we finally have the space to farm, we need trucks to import the seeds and export the crops and strong machinery to make the use of the farm "efficient". Both of the two things that I just mentioned above require oil even though the main benefit of "green" plastic was that it was not based on oil. Then, to have a successful harvest, you will require fertilizer and pesticides. Both of these can cause harm to nature but they also again require oil to transported and even to be spread on larger fields. So yes, the final product is eco-friendly but the process of making it isn't up to date.



How might these green plastics change packaging practices? 


They could make plastic packaging that we use today such as grocery bags, bottles and plastic cases bio-degradable. This could be a new wave of eco-friendliness. Use the product and then throw the packaging into the compost. No more going to recycling places, just dispose it in your backyard. It could also slow down the usage of oil which we are trying to find replacements for in all of its uses as it is running out fast. The possibility of twenty percent of plastic being this "green" type would be a big step but there will still be a long, long way to go. This is one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.

Current Events 8

Dolly the Sheep is Alive, Alive, Alive, Alive
Author: Kyle VanHemert
Date Written: 1/12/10
Link: http://gizmodo.com/5703652/dolly-the-sheep-is-alive-alive-alive-alive


In 1996, an important step in the science of cloning was made. For the first time, a clone was made from a mammal adult cell. The cloned sheep was named Dolly. Unfortunately, the sheep suffered of arthritis and its lungs were failing. It had to be put down at an age of six in the year 2002. 
But then in in the year 2006, Professor Keith Campbell of Nottingham University defrosted some of the sheep's tissue and made not only one, but four new clones of it. Not many people knew about these new clones and those that knew about it kept relatively quiet. That was only until recently when Professor Campbell mentioned these clones on a lecture about cloning in the European Parliament. 
These new clones are much more successful than the original Dolly. Not only did each one come from a group of five while the orginal came from a group of 277. Also, they are all perfectly healthy at four while Dolly died at the age of six.
I think that it is very interesting that not only can we clone Dolly again but that we can also more successful at it. I wonder how long the new sheep will survive but this is a success already and another step towards perfection in cloning.