According to the article, Native American mascots bring more negativity than the luck they are supposed to bring, “…(1) they [mascots] reflect and reinforce stereotypes, (2) they harm Native Americans, and (3) Native Americans do not have control over them,” (IMHTNA). Native Americans are already stereotyped against by having “red skin and feathers in their hair.” Seeing this exact image portrayed by many school mascots reinforces these stereotypes and keeps people thinking close-mindedly. However, it’s not just recently begun to be a problem; Native Americans were treated harshly back in the 1800s as well. The United States government was cruel to Native Americans in more ways than one, “The soldiers attack your villages and kill your women, children, and old people,” (Lakota). In many cases, the United States government had agreed and signed a treaty with the Native Americans, but then had broken the treaty soon after.
Conservationists, geneticists, and biotechnologists support this idea because of the technological and scientific challenges involved. However, I believe that de-extinction is ethically wrong for many reasons and by reviving dead species, we might be do more harm to our already damaged ecosystems. First of all, as we already know it, the human population continues to increase at a significant rate thus creating the need of habitat expansion. Humans have been actively pushing animals out of their natural habitat and now many animals are currently endangered and in the brink of extinction – many have already gone extinct. It is therefore said that it is upon us to resurrect extinct species as part of our moral obligations.
“Perceptions of Invasive Species: The Cane Toad” Invasive species are often given a bad name. The word “invasive” itself naturally has negative connotations, which is perhaps why when people hear the term “invasive species” they automatically regard the species with animosity. As Davis et al. (2011) aptly put: ‘'non-native' species have been vilified for driving beloved 'native' species to extinction and generally polluting 'natural' environments. Intentionally or not, such characterizations have helped to create a pervasive bias against alien species that has been embraced by the public, conservationists, land managers and policy-makers, as well by as many scientists, throughout the world.’ The issue of native and invasive species is not clear, even though we tend to value native species and view invasive species with suspicion.
Whaling has been around on since prehistoric times, they were hunted by chasing the whales, and throwing a harpoon into them. Whaling and fishing in the late nineteenth and twentieth century became a tragedy of the commons where fishermen had little incentive to allow some fish to remain to only be taken by others. Countries around the world were putting whales on the brink of extinction through any means necessary. By not taking young fish, this would allow future fish to keep the population stable, but by not taking the younger fish, the fishermen would lose these to other fishermen. In the 1800s and 1900s whales were found to be quite practical and useful.
They also used whale oil as fuel. The Whale hunt was a very large part of their culture. The men would spend months preparing for the hunt by working on their canoes and making tarpons. During the time period in the early 1900’s when the Makah’s voluntarily stopped whaling due to the low population, the whaling laws went through a huge overhaul. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) was created to regulate whaling in the US.
The Obligation to Endure Rachel Carson challenges the progress that this world has taken and questions if it is truly progress at all. We as humans endanger and harm ourselves in ways that we are often unaware of. Carson persuades her audience, the progressive intellectuals, in her book, “Silent Spring”, that the use of chemicals is causing destruction and should be put to an end. She concentrates her ideas in the chapter “The Obligation to Endure”, where she goes against the horrible consequences of chemical use on pests. She elaborates on the issue of spraying chemicals and if it is increasing or decreasing the progress in the world.
Vivisection: A Modern Day Scandal Why is it that in the scientific age of the twenty first century, we are still carrying out horrifically unethical and unreliable tests on defenceless animals in vain attempts to understand the effects of varying cosmetic or medical products in humans, an entirely different species? That is a question being asked of by a growing number of outraged people-animal rights activists, doctors, scholars and lay people alike – all of whom are guided by compassion, scientific fact and common sense. However there are still many who support this outdated, Victorian style methodology, claiming it to be humane, beneficial to human health and vital to modern medicine. This essay will explore the (ir) rationality associated with vivisection, using strong, peer reviewed evidence as the basis for the counter argument and it will also address the controversial issue of where their vested interests lie. Government figures show that three million animals per year in the UK alone are poisoned, surgically injured, driven insane, burned, irradiated, starved, electrocuted, kept in solitary confinement and eventually killed all in the name of research, in experiments that most people would find hard to even imagine.
Nuclear waste is harmful to the environment and its inhabitants. Even though the nuclear power industry might oppose nuclear waste signage due to negative public opinion regarding management of nuclear waste, the parameters for storing nuclear waste are crucial for future generations. First, the parameters for storing nuclear waste are crucial for future generations because it is imperative to educate people on the importance of nuclear waste signage. The question is what type of signs would say, “stay away” to humans living 10,000 years from now? Exposure to high levels of radioactive waste can cause birth defects, cancer, and death.
Maria Ruiz English 101 Prof. Courtney Stanton Oct. 8, 2014 Sustainability and our Environment Our natural world is losing its essence of ‘natural’ to become a polluted and corrupted place. In Curtis White’s work, “A Good Without Light” and Jim Tarter’s work, “Some Live More Downstream than Others”; Tarter doesn’t mention a solution to our environmental crisis, but he presents his idea that science can be of great use to find the factors that create pollution, cancer and so on. White’s solution to this barbaric heart is that we have the power to stop it, but instead we are making the choice to hurt others. Overall these works show us the effects of how we suffer the consequences when the Barbaric Heart is violating our environment. White’s view on the barbaric heart promotes our own self-benefit, which links to Tarter’s view of living downstream.
Other policies attempted to ‘breed-out’ Indigenous Australians by pairing an Indiginous individual with a white partner. These ‘half-castes’ where again viewed as inferior and often removed from government reserves and discouraged from interacting with Indigenous people, including their parents, in an attempt to remove the Indigenous culture from the general populace. These policies have created an enormous effect on the Indiginous experience of health. It has led to the loss of culture and identity to an entire generation of Indigenous people and therefore a severe lack of understanding of health amongst those affected. Further, many Indiginous Australians today still have deep seeded mistrust of Western medicine because of these historical factors.