Just a Thought...

According to the Malthusian Theory, there are two types of "checks" that play a role in guiding population growth. First there are the preventative checks which monitor the rate of population through "moral restraint". Examples include birth control, restriction from marriage at an early age, and having smaller families). Second there are positive checks which monitor population rates through shortening human life spans. Examples include war, famine, disease, and genocide. Today in 2015, the world inhabits around 7 billion people. Now, that's a lot of people when you take into account the capacity the earth is able to provide for us 7 billion people. One of the biggest pressures we put on the world is extraction of food. Malthus even said that a species can only survive if it avoids over harvesting its food source. With the population and food demand so high, corporations turned to science to solve our problems (because it always works out so well). One main "issue" trying to be solved is having the ability for plants to withstand destructive elements (like bugs or weather) so the food can grow no matter the surrounding environment. Chemicals and pesticides have been huge contributors to growing higher amounts of food. Some say it's harmless to ingest chemicals with the sole purpose to kill other organisms and others aren't so convinced. The black and white facts are, no matter how deep you get in this topic or which side you stand on, billions of people today are sick and one of the most well known ways to prevent yourself from getting sick is "eating right". Obviously the term "eating right" means eating a well balanced diet which fulfills your nutrient requirements, but could it also mean eating food that isn't groomed with chemicals and literal bug poison from the time of planting to harvesting? In my opinion... OBVIOUSLY! And with the amount of food that uses unnatural pesticides through the developmental process of that food, it's safe to say billions of people consume toxic chemicals regularly. In addition, with those big name corporations that provide our lovely chemically enriched food (and most of our food in general) not wanting to share with the public which foods are grown with or without chemicals, or the reports of the effects those toxins do to the human body, it's hard to place good judgement on what to buy/eat. It's one thing to raise food with harmful toxins, it's another thing to hide the effects of what consuming that food will do. So am I safe to say that the food industry today is actually an intentional huge positive check influencing our population? Our population is so big that we have resorted to secretly killing off as many people as possible without their awareness simply from what they had on their plates? Around 2.8 million adults die every year due to obesity (EASO.org). About 3.1 million children die every year due to malnutrition and starvation (stophungerno.org). Around 14 million people are diagnosed with cancer and about 8 million die from the disease a year (cdc.gov)(Of course not all cancer is food related). Food used to be the source of nutrition, energy, and growth and now it's slowly killing as many people as possible. What once was a necessity to sustain our life in a healthy manner, is now a solid staircase to millions of death globally. How do we fix food "checking" or population by killing us off? Would it be a more efficient world if what we ate didn't contain harmful toxins and didn't add to our already long list of disease? Or am I just imagining all of this...

FOOOOD

"A species-- human or otherwise-- can flourish only if it avoids over harvesting it's food sources." Seems simple enough to understand right? And yet such a simply understood concept wasn't/isn't fully understood by some people. We have already well past our limit of over harvesting food sources, and now are at the point of cramming animals so tight in captivity they don't develop the bones and marrow to be able to walk. Seeds are modified with DNA from other organisms like fish or scorpions to withstand harsher environments and cut the growth rate in half while ruining the soil and surrounding life. This concept has been around for generations and yet we as humans manage to push our environment far past the limit. It's clear today how well we have ruined our system of agriculture and the corruption that has come along with it. And there are ideas floating around to slowly fix our food industry, but how much worse does it need to get before serious action is implemented? People have risen and stood together in attempt to overcome corporate influence in food growth but really, how bad will it get before the government realizes they probably should stop undercutting national health facts in regard to corporate's generous donations? Or before the laboratories decide to spend more time testing the effects of pesticide poison instead of mixing DNA with other species? It's obvious the people's voice doesn't matter nearly enough as long as there are mouths eating the food, so what needs to change?

Industrial Revolution

It is well known that the Industrial Revolution set the progression of machinery. It enabled faster ways of production and transportation, but at what cost? Schools don't teach you every side of the story because "the winner writes history", but what are the other sides of the Industrial Revolution? According to the book, Sustainability: A History, the amount of work decrease by the thousands, conditions for workers became dangerous, destroyed global eco-systems, caused the extinction of many species, facilitated rampant population growth, and put immense pressure on climate systems. None of these have been featured in any history class I've taken which brings me to wonder, "what was the other side of the industrial revolution like?". I can only imagine that if I was living in that time, I wouldn't have taken this type of change lightly if I understood at least two of the negative impacts. What did the people think of the Industrial Revolution at the time of it happening? Were there people who were against the revolution? What did they think and/or do?

Rousseau, the True Homie

By now it's no surprise that there were advocates promoting environmental sustainability for a good amount of time. Through forestry, there have been countries like Japan and Germany who have seen potential for deforestation on a large scale but pulled back and set huge efforts towards re-growth. The real intriguing factor of this reading was Rousseau. He had the idea that society should be advancing through bettering our morals, rather than through technology or science. I think this man had the right idea because as humans, our core isn't our technological abilities or who holds the most power among nations, it's our morals. It's caring and supporting one another, including our earth and surroundings. Rousseau had a deep love for raw nature. He didn't see nature as only a resource for human survival but instead saw the beauty in just the simplicity of it on it's own. My question is, how do we get more people in big power to have this raw love for our environment too? Far too many people who have serious abilities to change the world don't see how important nature is besides that if which can benefit the human race. It seems like many people higher in political power don't realize the beauty of the environment and I believe that if more political figures have a love for the environment, more action will be done towards saving it. So how do we get people with the mindset of caring for the environment further than just for the benefit of humans up in political power?