Jun 7 2012: I see what you're saying about prisoners doing the things we don't want to do. Hmm, it's kinda like bioremediation, where flowers that can soak up the negative toxins from the soil can make it amenable for new flowers to move in, until the soil is green again. While some tasks could certainly be a good way to punish prisoners and get something done at the same time, we're trying to make people better when they get out than they were to begin with, so you want to foster a love of nature, not disgust.
Jun 7 2012: Yes, even though I don't like the idea of people being compelled to be environmentally-responsible just for the rewards they derive from it, rather than just the pureness of it, I think that by implementing this reward system the feel-good feeling will come to outweigh the importance of the reward. Once people get over the mental hurdle of making a change, they may very well come to realize that the change has been for the better, and any sort of reward can be relaxed.
http://kindista.org and http://kickstarter.com are great examples of positive community involvement. On a publically-visible nationwide scale something like this would be amazing. Could you imagine a nationwide "stock exchange" board showing how people are "trending" a la Twitter in their environmental and decency scores?
Jun 7 2012: I like that idea of differentiation. I think people generally have an idea of "Zoo" in their minds as a place where they can see all sorts of exotic creatures, lions and tigers and bears (oh my!), but focusing on just one heritage could be even more exotic. Imagine if you could see all the bizarre convolutions of hummingbirds side by side! I actually don't think that it would be any less of a draw to be more specific, since focusing would "magnify" the uniqueness of the zoo. For every species, anyway, there is a "poster child," whether for creepy-crawly worms it is an annelid that glows or for frogs its the lightning-daubed dart frog. Specialization is where it's at!
Jun 7 2012: A zoo is a zoo, I wouldn't say they should "focus" on conservation outside zoo boundaries. I have no problem with that being the focus of conservation organizations.
However, I do think that there should be some sort of zoo-oid "conservation easement" program--that is, the mandate that zoos are managed sustainably, and if necessary extraction of some zoo profits to go to environmental organizations that can focus on these extra-zoo issues while the zoos themselves worry about their in-zoo habitat. There should be a thorough analysis of all zoos and these should be graded as health inspectors do for restaurants. People should know whether this is an "A" or a "B" farm.
In line with the topic of a conversation easement-esque brokerage, zoos should need to equate species capture with species freedom. In other words, if they keep one elephant in a zoo, they must do something that demonstrably helps to keep one elephant free overseas. (This duty can be handed off to a dedicated conservation group.) Similar to an emissions tax in which companies are penalized for every iota of greenhouse gas they emit over the allowable threshold, why not have zoos be penalized when they subvert strict guidelines, the UN's "Universal Rights of Zoo Creatures"?
Jun 4 2012: I suppose I feel that we are treading very delicate waters here in regard to extremist action. I do agree that we may come to a point where it becomes obvious, to the majority, that nothing on Earth that we try is working, and an act of extremism is the only thing that can knock people to their senses.
The problem is that many of the small-scale extremist acts just tick people off. And of course the problem with this catastrophic extremist act I'm talking about is the fact that it's catastrophic.
May 31 2012: In my book, any extremist act that throws life into question is immoral. Wars are fought because one side feels it has the righteous cause. It doesn't matter what the end result is: even if one side is successful, and the end result is a better nation or world, the fact remains that there are better ways around it. "Eco-sabotage" (rather than all-out violence) is fine if all it does is throw a wrench in the works--like destroying a crop of strawberries in a huge industrial corporation--but not OK if it completely destroys someone's livelihood (like an act, say, committed against one farmer who has no recompense against this action). Of course, in my qualification system of whether something is OK or not OK, it turns out that acceptable acts are those that barely scratch the evil-doer.
The media should be a target of environmental education. They are the ones informing the opinions of the public. To continue the analogy of war, every time that I see a headline in the paper saying "US to insert/remove 2,000 troops from Afghanistan, I can't help but think, why on Earth are we telling the "enemy" this? In the case of the recent economic Depression, the way to get out of a Depression is by consumers spending as they used to do, and not getting paralyzed by the fear of other people NOT spending. But how are people supposed to feel confident when every day they hear on TV, read from the newspaper, "DOW Continues to Plummet"? (I am absolutely not advocating the war and increased consumerism. I am only using these as examples.)
I'm not asking for the media to only publish feel-good beatifically happy stories. All I'm asking is for a little more rose-colored glasses. Environmental organizations and individuals should start increasing their focus on the media because they are the power players of public perception. When reporters become more concerned about the environment, they will be less amenable to producing stories that threaten it.
May 28 2012: As far as permits for those who assert cultural significance, I think those should only be allotted in the homeland of the culture. You could say that it is not fair to suddenly enforce a code such as this when it has been going on for years. You could say that it is not fair to disenfranchise someone, culturally speaking, when they are out of their mother country. But you have to put your foot down somewhere.
On the topic of fisheries occuring in Canada and Alaska, not just for sharks but for any sort of resource, if there are few enough people I have faith that the fish, if not strong enough to survive on their own, can be sustained by the experiential realization that "hey, it's getting harder and harder to find them!" as well as ecologists visiting these people--and not telling them, "hey, you have to quit your livelihood,"--just flicking the light on for them so they can see, perhaps, what they have been overlooking.
May 24 2012: Should there be a moratorium on shark fishing, period? Fins, bodies--harpoons (back off, Ahab!), hands off?
Sharks are in a delicate place. There are many threatened species of fish that we could decide to save, but they are "small fry" compared to sharks. Sharks are charismatic megafauna like lions and tigers and bears (oh my)--animals that we still are just a tad afraid of but have come to regard with added bits of regal dignity. They're like thrill rides or scary movies. .........................to those who watch "Shark Week"
To the Japanese and Chinese who regard sharks as a major part of their cultural heritage, banning shark capture would be like banning Fourth of July fireworks (OK, probably not that severe, but you get the picture.) Fireworks are pretty and explosive but have you seen how much smoke they release?
And to those who have no sense of sympathy for animals, who regard anything less than humans as lacking in innate goodness and spirit, sharks are just dangerous things, if they even think of them at all.
What do I think? I think that anywhere it can be obviously demonstrated that sharks are not an integral part of the culture, there should be an outright ban on shark fishing--no fins, no bodies, nothing. Where it can be demonstrated as culturally significant (Japan...perhaps?) that country should be able to fish for sharks (but not fin), albeit under the condition that periodical checks by an international board yield a sustainable hatchery.
May 22 2012: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1031438/Pictured-The-floating-cities-day-house-climate-change-refugees.html "Lilypad Cities"
I direct you all to that link to show how human ingenuity is illimitable. This is not to say that it provides the best, or even good solutions, but green roofs will not hinder architectural designs. We are too creative, and our subjects (plants) are too intelligent and tenuous for that.
With the idea of "green roofs" we tend to think of roofs that are populated by things that are uniformly green, that is, the types of leafy lollipop spheres that represent a green space on a designer's computer screen. To me, the most exciting thing about green roofs is the potential for intense variation across buildings, across countries--reflecting the particular nuances of the landscape. Is it too warm for cherry trees in Miami? Plant a Japanese garden of mangroves and saw palmetto. Is it too cold for cherry trees in Maine? Plant a forest of white spruces. They are used to shallow, moist soils.
From the plant's point of view, the greatest problem will be a lack of soil consistent with the constraints of a rooftop. Bonsai trees are bonsai trees simply because they are maintained and pruned in a pot. To avoid this, we can a) start adapting green roofs to the climate b) make roof-building a whole new discipline, in which they become new earths, not merely shelters for those living or working below them.
Another thing that we must not overlook, however, is that if we start explicitly designing buildings to house incredible rooftop gardens, we may start building bigger roofs, and bigger buildings. That's a long way off though!
- Does cannabis have any exclusive properties? That is, are its qualities unique? Noted above are its abilities to treat glaucoma, Parkinson's, AIDS, and cancer. To my knowledge there are other medicines, even natural products, that treat these also. If there is a replacement--one that does not have the history of addiction associated with it as cannabis does--that leads me away from legalization of cannabis.
- How "pure" is medical marijuana? That is, how far distanced from utilizing the plant itself, rather than a byproduct or isolated compound, or synthetic, is our use of cannabis? (I simply do not know -- feel free to edify.) That, to me, would be the greatest boon. I tend to think that the closer we are to nature's essential product, ultimately the more beneficial it is.
Of course, even I have to regard this last comment of mine with some skepticism, because a poison dart frog's toxin may be "pure," but that doesn't mean it's good for you.
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: From ivory tower to prison cell: How can we bring conservation efforts to the public?
A reply on Conversation: From ivory tower to prison cell: How can we bring conservation efforts to the public?
http://kindista.org and http://kickstarter.com are great examples of positive community involvement. On a publically-visible nationwide scale something like this would be amazing. Could you imagine a nationwide "stock exchange" board showing how people are "trending" a la Twitter in their environmental and decency scores?
A reply on Conversation: Do zoos help biodiversity conservation?
A comment on Conversation: Do zoos help biodiversity conservation?
However, I do think that there should be some sort of zoo-oid "conservation easement" program--that is, the mandate that zoos are managed sustainably, and if necessary extraction of some zoo profits to go to environmental organizations that can focus on these extra-zoo issues while the zoos themselves worry about their in-zoo habitat. There should be a thorough analysis of all zoos and these should be graded as health inspectors do for restaurants. People should know whether this is an "A" or a "B" farm.
In line with the topic of a conversation easement-esque brokerage, zoos should need to equate species capture with species freedom. In other words, if they keep one elephant in a zoo, they must do something that demonstrably helps to keep one elephant free overseas. (This duty can be handed off to a dedicated conservation group.) Similar to an emissions tax in which companies are penalized for every iota of greenhouse gas they emit over the allowable threshold, why not have zoos be penalized when they subvert strict guidelines, the UN's "Universal Rights of Zoo Creatures"?
A reply on Conversation: Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?
The problem is that many of the small-scale extremist acts just tick people off. And of course the problem with this catastrophic extremist act I'm talking about is the fact that it's catastrophic.
A comment on Conversation: Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?
The media should be a target of environmental education. They are the ones informing the opinions of the public. To continue the analogy of war, every time that I see a headline in the paper saying "US to insert/remove 2,000 troops from Afghanistan, I can't help but think, why on Earth are we telling the "enemy" this? In the case of the recent economic Depression, the way to get out of a Depression is by consumers spending as they used to do, and not getting paralyzed by the fear of other people NOT spending. But how are people supposed to feel confident when every day they hear on TV, read from the newspaper, "DOW Continues to Plummet"? (I am absolutely not advocating the war and increased consumerism. I am only using these as examples.)
I'm not asking for the media to only publish feel-good beatifically happy stories. All I'm asking is for a little more rose-colored glasses. Environmental organizations and individuals should start increasing their focus on the media because they are the power players of public perception. When reporters become more concerned about the environment, they will be less amenable to producing stories that threaten it.
A reply on Conversation: Should shark fishing be banned?
On the topic of fisheries occuring in Canada and Alaska, not just for sharks but for any sort of resource, if there are few enough people I have faith that the fish, if not strong enough to survive on their own, can be sustained by the experiential realization that "hey, it's getting harder and harder to find them!" as well as ecologists visiting these people--and not telling them, "hey, you have to quit your livelihood,"--just flicking the light on for them so they can see, perhaps, what they have been overlooking.
A comment on Conversation: Should shark fishing be banned?
Sharks are in a delicate place. There are many threatened species of fish that we could decide to save, but they are "small fry" compared to sharks. Sharks are charismatic megafauna like lions and tigers and bears (oh my)--animals that we still are just a tad afraid of but have come to regard with added bits of regal dignity. They're like thrill rides or scary movies. .........................to those who watch "Shark Week"
To the Japanese and Chinese who regard sharks as a major part of their cultural heritage, banning shark capture would be like banning Fourth of July fireworks (OK, probably not that severe, but you get the picture.) Fireworks are pretty and explosive but have you seen how much smoke they release?
And to those who have no sense of sympathy for animals, who regard anything less than humans as lacking in innate goodness and spirit, sharks are just dangerous things, if they even think of them at all.
What do I think? I think that anywhere it can be obviously demonstrated that sharks are not an integral part of the culture, there should be an outright ban on shark fishing--no fins, no bodies, nothing. Where it can be demonstrated as culturally significant (Japan...perhaps?) that country should be able to fish for sharks (but not fin), albeit under the condition that periodical checks by an international board yield a sustainable hatchery.
A comment on Conversation: If green roofs were mandatory in cities would there be less development and building?
I direct you all to that link to show how human ingenuity is illimitable. This is not to say that it provides the best, or even good solutions, but green roofs will not hinder architectural designs. We are too creative, and our subjects (plants) are too intelligent and tenuous for that.
With the idea of "green roofs" we tend to think of roofs that are populated by things that are uniformly green, that is, the types of leafy lollipop spheres that represent a green space on a designer's computer screen. To me, the most exciting thing about green roofs is the potential for intense variation across buildings, across countries--reflecting the particular nuances of the landscape. Is it too warm for cherry trees in Miami? Plant a Japanese garden of mangroves and saw palmetto. Is it too cold for cherry trees in Maine? Plant a forest of white spruces. They are used to shallow, moist soils.
From the plant's point of view, the greatest problem will be a lack of soil consistent with the constraints of a rooftop. Bonsai trees are bonsai trees simply because they are maintained and pruned in a pot. To avoid this, we can a) start adapting green roofs to the climate b) make roof-building a whole new discipline, in which they become new earths, not merely shelters for those living or working below them.
Another thing that we must not overlook, however, is that if we start explicitly designing buildings to house incredible rooftop gardens, we may start building bigger roofs, and bigger buildings. That's a long way off though!
A comment on Conversation: Should Cannabis be legalized as a medicine?
- Does cannabis have any exclusive properties? That is, are its qualities unique? Noted above are its abilities to treat glaucoma, Parkinson's, AIDS, and cancer. To my knowledge there are other medicines, even natural products, that treat these also. If there is a replacement--one that does not have the history of addiction associated with it as cannabis does--that leads me away from legalization of cannabis.
- How "pure" is medical marijuana? That is, how far distanced from utilizing the plant itself, rather than a byproduct or isolated compound, or synthetic, is our use of cannabis? (I simply do not know -- feel free to edify.) That, to me, would be the greatest boon. I tend to think that the closer we are to nature's essential product, ultimately the more beneficial it is.
Of course, even I have to regard this last comment of mine with some skepticism, because a poison dart frog's toxin may be "pure," but that doesn't mean it's good for you.