The article was interesting how it first suggested that socialism or the privatization of free enterprise are not the only options available to control resources. The successes were found to be small to large groups that were living within the country and had various levels of institutionalized controls. They ended the article with pushing for global solutions, yet the global powers of the world often are willing to discuss solutions as long as it does not impact their own country's economic standings. It will ultimately be necessary for the changes to take place; there will be additional costs to responsible business and irresponsible business will, and should, cost more.

For my final project I decided to compare US fishing practices with Japan's fishing practices. After watching an intense video of dolphin trapping, it certainly got my attention. I would like to start with any official restrictions and then dissect the different aspects of the industry, including the responses from the communities about the industry and the restrictions. There are certainly different degrees to which people utilize the Game and Fish Department on a yearly basis in the US. For the purpose of this research, I would like to focus on communities that are dependent on this industry, such as coastal towns. I grew up going fishing with my family and have fond memories of catching them, though I never did like eating them!

There are certainly different perceptions on population growth and some of the associated problems. Some view the world as incapable of sustaining population growth, whereas others feel the world has the potential to support an unlimited amount of people. The assignment to interview a person who has long term insight on their perspective I found very interesting.

I asked how concerned she was with population growth over the years and what has impacted her views. She said, "in high school and college the public message was to not have more than two children, implying it was appropriate to replace yourselves to maintain the current population. There was concern about pockets that were being discovered of people starving due to climate issues. Today, I worry more about countries like India and China because their population is so much higher and they are rapidly advancing they technology and energy use. I also feel like now conflicts are not local, but more globally driven by greed". I asked what problem from population growth concerned her the most? She replied, "When I was growing up, we would look at the National Geographic Magazine to see places around the world and dream of going there someday. It was the only outlet to other areas of the world, now you have the internet. It seems like now people are only concerned with making money and looking at global issues when we have issues in our own country that need addressed".

It is always interesting to hear someone else discuss their point of view. There were things that I agreed with and there was something that she said that I had to hold my tongue, as to to document her thoughts, not mine.

The solution to ecological problems around the world lies within women's rights. I found this to be one of the most compelling and true statements in the reading. There was much to learn from Annika's presentation about Niger. Having one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world, alongside a life expectancy of 44, does not leave much room for dreaming about growing old together! I was also surprised that the general consensus there, is to have a large a family as possible. The idea being that some population growth may lead to increased, rather than decreased resources. 

Peter Singer certainly made his way through his response to the critique of his work! It must be a frustrating part of creating academic works to be reviewed by others, and feel you have been misunderstood. He made the point that humans have the mental capacity that could allow them to suffer more in certain situations, compared to an animal in the same position. He also had very strong views, that morally, if you are able to stop something bad from happening, without harm (morally), then you should; I agree. One of his basic ideas was that there should be equality to all non-human animals. It seems difficult there would be equality amongst all animals, however, I fully agree with the lack of suffering. I accept some animals will be used as a food source, though I would never wish any living thing to suffer! The author also had some very strong sediments about passive Americans, not even reacting to the idea of millions of people starving, when we have the resources to make all the difference.

When discussing the issue of deforestation, I tend to believe more of the populist discourse, that it is a serious global issue. Though, rather than the small farmers and land managers being the problem, with slash and burn uses of the land, the force causing the issue is likely transnational interests and logging companies that finance and fuel their operation.

Indigenous forest dwellers are forced to abandon their environment or possibly in a vicious massacre, they do not. "There are over 300 million indigenous people in about 5000 groups in more than 70 countries"(http://www.fao.org/docrep/w1033e/w1033e09.htm). Very interesting how they are able to get what they need from the forest, without, or with very little impact to their surroundings.


I wanted to mention that the dissertation was very interesting. I did not have very much knowledge about how the people in Mongolia adapted to the weather there. The zud sounds like a scary time of year, not only for the animals, but also for the people. I wonder in the future, maybe 20 years, if cattle will be as important as it is now or if something new will develop in this area? It was really sad to see the animals all huddled together, especially when it is clear they did not survive. I also wanted to also agree that the Jon Stewart clip was really funny!

I feel very fortunate to have grown up in a community where great effort was taken to balance the natural aspects with the needs of the surrounding city. For example, Nike built their headquarters in the Pacific Northwest by relocating trees, not cutting them down. For Arizona, it would mean saving all the cactus to build, not bulldozing them.

Growing up, almost every weekend included a day trip to a river, forest, beach or mountain and summers always included camping for several days. The author of "The Trouble with Wilderness" may have considered me a part of the group that idealizes nature. However, I disagree that visiting the "wild" encourages irresponsible environmental behavior because I find quite the opposite. When I find myself surrounded by nature, I feel more connected, more inspired to make sure these places are spared development for human use. I leave a campsite cleaner than when I got there, and try my best not to change the wild areas that I visit.

The author also implied that anyone who "works the land for a living" could never really enjoy nature, and I disagree. It can be so very humbling to stand at the top of a mountain, or be swallowed by standing in the mountain's shadow, any person could appreciate the feeling. Whether people choose to explore is their decision, though, there is a difference between a picture and being present.