The Dam Debate
In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, John Muir, a naturalist, and Marsden Manson, an engineer for the city of San Francisco, engaged in a heated debate over the construction of a dam in Hetchy Hetchy Valley. Muir wanted to preserve nature for the future, so he objected to the dam because he felt it would destroy the beauty of the area. On the other hand, Manson believed building a dam would provide water and electricity to the thousands of people who lived in the city of San Francisco, and this would preserve the well being of the human race for the future. Both men had good points and arguments to support their views; however, in the end you have to look out for your own kind. If there is a choice about the well being of the human race or nature, I believe there is only once choice to be made – the future support of the human race.
John Muir supported saving Hetchy Hetchy Valley for several reasons. He believed building a dam would close the area to the public and restrict access for people to enjoy the outdoors through camping, hiking, or just getting in touch with nature (Muir). Manson, however, believed that there was more need to provide a future source of water and electricity to the tens of thousands of people who lived in the city during that time (Manson). It is possible that Manson saw the influx of people moving to San Francisco and knew the population would explode over the years and thus, saw the need for preserving some basic essential needs for human survival. He felt that preserving nature for a few hundred people who might go hiking or camping was far less important than preserving the human race. We all know that electricity is not an essential need to survive, because people have lived by fire and candlelight for centuries, but water is essential to survival.
Another argument that was discussed was building a dam would exclude the public to the watershed above the dam. This was only partially true because it would only be closed for about three and a half months of the year. Yosemite Valley had been doing this for decades to keep Tuolumne Meadows clean. Closing the area for a brief time as Yosemite Valley does would be for the same reason – to keep the watershed clean.
The topic the essay is mainly talking about is whether to initiate the San Joaquin River Project. I am with Bill McEwen on his article, “River Plan Too Fishy for my Taste Buds.” I chose this author because I do not think the government should spend more money on the river rights project. The author convinced me that he is more credible and can be trusted by all the experience he has. The article was published in Fresno Bee on March 26,2009 and is surrounded by farms so the people there know what will happen if big businesses were to start a project. McEwen demonstrates how this project will impact the city in a negative way by stating ethos, logos, and pathos.
The one feature common to the Hoover Dam, The Mississippi river and the three gorges dam is that they all tried to control nature’s swings, specifically in the form of flooding. Before the Hoover dam was built, the Colorado river “used to flood spectacularly…but after 1900 the Colorado provoked a vehement response” (Pg 177). The response was simple, but large. The U.S. built several large dams, including the Hoover dam, on the Colorado to decrease its flooding and increase power and irrigation. Unfortunately, just as human control of the Colorado’s flooding increased, its organisms and habitats were detrimentally influenced, and the water became more and more salinated.
The bond between humans and nature, it is fascinating to see how us has humans and nature interact with each other and in this case the essay The Heart’s Fox by Josephine Johnson is an example of judging the unknown of one's actions. She talks about a fox that had it's life taken as well as many others with it, the respect for nature is something that is precious to most and should not be taken advantage of. Is harming animals or any part of nature always worth it? I see this text as a way of saying that we must be not so terminate the life around us. Today I see us a s experts at destroying most around us and it's sad to see how much we do it and how it's almost as if it's okay to do and sadly is see as it nature itself hurts humans unintentionally
In the 1898 mayoral election, Frederick Eaton was elected as mayor of Los Angeles; and appointed his associate, William Mulholland- the superintendent of the newly created Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Eaton and Mulholland envisioned a region of Los Angeles that would make Los Angeles become the turn of the century. The limiting factor of that regions growth was water supply. Eaton and Mulholland realized that the Owens Valley had a large amount of runoff from the Sierra Nevada, and a gravity-fed aqueduct that could deliver the Owens water to Los Angeles. During the early 1900’s the United States Bureau of Reclamation made plans to build an irrigation system to help the farmers of the Owens Valley. By 1905, through purchases, and alleged intimidation and bribery, Los Angeles purchased enough water rights to enable construction of the aqueduct.
Anaphylaxis shock occurs when someone who is sensitive to a substance they are exposed to which results in constricted airway and possible inability to breathe. Parents with children that experience any form of allergic reaction most notify the day care provider so appropriate precautionary steps are taken to maintain a safe health environment for these children. As allergy conditions have slowly increased within our society day care providers have taken more aggressive action to protect these children by extending a “peanut free environment” within the school setting. The percentage of children who experience their first allergic reaction outside the home has increased by 77% over past years daycare providers need to be trained and prepared to handle all types of allergic reaction situations. Steps that a provider and parent should take are as follows: 1. Food allergy action plan, 2. Inform all staff, 3. Post child’s name and allergy,
In the beginning of the construction of the Three Gorges Dam, there were several problems. There were several protestors and opinions about the dam before the Three Gorges Dam project was even started.1 China has had history of several dam failures in the mid-1970s that were responsible for thousands of deaths. The three gorges (Xiling, Wu, and Qutang) have scenery that is a tourist attraction.2 The dam was going to be a little over 600 feet tall, 7500 feet wide, and hold over 97 trillion gallons of water. Because of all of the population increase, China started using coal power plants1 and shipping, which causes acid rain over the region making the Yangtze River is one of the most polluted rivers in the world.4 It does not help that the Yangtze River runs right through Chinas industrial heartland. Using the river to transport their goods to other parts or China adds to the pollution.2 Pollution from mines, hospitals, and garbage dumping is another big problem for the river because the pollution is building up around the dam.1 With the Three Gorges Dam will come landslides because of the rising water tables and the large slopes with unstable soil from local farming causing more sediment being added to the river.3 And because the dam lies on a fault line there will also be an escalation of earthquakes. There is a huge decrease in sediment discharge; which caused a 90% sediment load into thousands of other reservoirs. Before the dam was operational, it was retaining water and sediments.4 The water levels were rising faster than anyone expected, therefore, the finish date had to be moved up.1 Scientists even projected that 70% of sediment discharge would be trapped for the first two decades and 44% would be store...
Allergies are hypersensitive immune responses to substances that either enter or come in contact with the body. In layman's terms allergies are, a food or natural substance. These include pollen, ragweed, peanuts, shellfish and pet dander are recognized by the immune system as a threat.
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Sociology has been around since the Age of Enlightenment, as both the French and other European men desired to learn more about society. This widespread desire to evaluate the science of society led to sociology, which is now officially defined as the study of the development, structure and functioning of human society. Sociologists can study virtually any topic as long as it has a relation to a society, which means sociology can be argued to include virtually every subject or thing one can think of.
In the early 20th century, California became the battle grounds of one of the most famous water wars in U.S. history. It was the dawn of progress for the city of Los Angeles but progress requires an exorbitant amount of money and resources. Unfortunately for the citizens of Owens valley, the leaders of the growing city would target the river that provided thousands of ranchers with water as their primary source for water.
After reviewing the article titles given for this first assignment, I believe they indicate that Sociology, generally speaking, is not only a study of diversity or commonality in traits among people; it is also a science about factors in a person’s life and how these factors culminate responses. Interestingly enough, its topics of concern seem to be directly determined by current and common events of the world. Through the invention and expansion of new ideas, popular trends and fashions through time, Sociology adapts to responsibly to service the very subjects of interest it studies; for, even the slightest change of a person’s daily experience can have an insurmountable impact on attitude, personal growth, family dynamics and basic group behavior.
Every day, people enjoy foods like bread, peanut butter, and cheese; foods like these have become commonplace in normal diets. It’s probably hard to imagine life without them, but many people are unable to eat these foods and others without uncomfortable or dangerous bodily reactions. As many as 15 million Americans may suffer from food allergies ("FARE" 3), which result when a person’s immune system attacks harmless food proteins with potentially fatal consequences. Because of this, food allergies affect every aspect of a person’s life and need to be taken seriously by both the affected person and those around them.
Sociology is exemplified by the study of a society or societies. Society is shaped by set of tradition that will shaped the behavior people by an assortment of rules that govern individuals within a certain society in their daily transactions and interactions. After watching and analyzing these videos and concept, this has given me a greater insight on what can be taught and learned.
Though Blackstone created these thoughts well over 200 years ago, they are more relevant now than ever before. He reasoned that “changing environmental conditions” require us to restrict traditional freedoms and property rights in the name of public welfare and equality (Desjardins, 104). Due to dwindling natural resources and rising concerns of pollution, those previous rights and freedoms can no longer exist if the welfare of posterity is to be protected. To say that millions of unborn humans have a right to anything, even before existing in our world, is an odd concept. However, this sentiment conveys perhaps the single most compelling argument for why an anthropocentric approach to environmental ethics is in fact, the most justified. It is the instinct of all living beings to prioritize oneself and ensure a future for those to come (Acari, 2017). Though this justification for protecting the natural world might seem selfish or short-sighted, it is in fact, the nature of all life to preserve self-interests. In response to the counterclaim that plants and animals should be regarded with natural rights like humans, Blackstone would rebut that these beings are incapable of “free and rational thought” (Desjardins, 103). This is most likely in part due to his purely anthropocentric perspective that human life alone is worth consideration. Thus,