Mat Lisin

West Linn, OR, United States

Someone is shy

Mat hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
From ivory tower to prison cell: How can we bring conservation efforts to the public?
I'm in the same boat as you when it comes to eating healthy. It is just cheap and easy to eat junk. I think you can expand the idea you touched on with junk food to fuel as well. I have thought for a while that the price we pay for gas is not the true price of oil. I think our wars, and our military's presence in many countries is due entirely to the need to procure more oil. Well, if we need this oil so bad and can't live without it, we need to be paying the full price for it. If gas were $7 or $8 per gallon in America then maybe we wouldn't insist on using so much of it. If we're going to send soldiers to other countries to protect the interests of oil companies, those companies should be paying for that. And by extension we will end up paying for it. And that is a good thing. The thing is, we already are paying for it by way of taxes and debt. This isn't good enough. People blame social programs for raising their taxes when in truth it is our dependence on oil. We need to see what this dependence is really costing us, and future generations of Americans.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
Do zoos help biodiversity conservation?
I agree. I think the zoos primary goal should be to educate the public. When it comes to conserving biodiversity their concern should be with educating people on why it is important to conserve biodiversity. When the situation arises and it is convenient for a zoo to help save a species, as was the case with the California Condor, they should of course be a part of it. But thinking about zoos as a means of conserving a species is not an effective way to conserve biodiversity, nor is it an efficient use of zoos.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?
Well yeah, I guess nothing is ever perfect. I have signed a few petitions when I'm stopped on campus, but I've blown off many more that I would've supported if I hadn't been stopped while trying to get to class. It isn't exactly a petition, but I have seen Reddit have tremendous success with gathering people's attention on an issue Congress is about to vote on, and getting those people to send an e-mail or make a phone call to their senators. The best example was the push to stop SOPA. Of course Reddit would be all over that, but they had a top post on the front page that listed the names, states and phone numbers of every senator. It made it so easy for people from all over the country to call in and get their opinions heard.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?
It is hard to argue with this. I only wish to point out two things. First off, not all extremist acts are the same. A group that refuses to leave a grove of trees about to be cut down are labeled extremists, but they are not the same as a group that sets logging equipment on fire. Secondly in the case of environmental extremism the extremists bring media attention to issues. If they keep extremist activities to a minimum and know when to stop I believe extremism should be tolerated.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?
I disagree that sitting on your computer and signing a petition is not an effective way to cause change. I'm not saying it is a great way, and I am certainly not saying our system is set up well to encourage senators to care what we sign, but it is something that is easy for people to do. A petition takes nothing more than a signature or a click, and I personally have attached my name to plenty of things I feel our senators should know I care about. petitions are an easy way for people to attach their support to something without requiring them to take too much out of their normal day. Now of course, peaceful or extremist active participation is a more effective way of bringing attention to an issue. These people are needed, including in my opinion the extremists. But this form of activism is for the dedicated believers in a cause. The majority of people may want more environmental protection, but they also want a multitude of other things. Activism to bring the issues to light, petitions for the majority to get behind numerous different issues. You probably don't have enough time to be active on multiple different issues, but you do have time to sign multiple different petitions. Now all that said, actively seeking signatures on petitions on campus is freaking annoying. This should be done by having to get permission from the EMU to set up a booth, and then letting people come to you on their time if they find your issue to be important. If you try to stop me when I've got to get from one side of campus to the other in 10 minutes you're going to have a bad time. And I think posting petitions online on popular message boards like Reddit for people to see and sign there is a much more effective way of getting signatures than standing outside looking for them.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
If green roofs were mandatory in cities would there be less development and building?
I know that constructing solar panels is not exactly a green process. What I meant is that once they are up the solar panels will do the same job as the plants in absorbing some of the incoming light, which will lower the amount of cooling the building needs. Also little to no maintenance? Not to harp on this solar thing, but they require little to no maintenance. I just don't see how plants baking in the sun all day could possibly not require maintenance. Again, I'm speaking with regards to certain areas. In the PNW I'm sure the plants would require little to no maintenance and would be a better solution. I don't mean to say I think we should change the idea to solar roofs instead of green roofs, I just think solar may be a better way to go in certain areas.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
Should shark fishing be banned?
Haha stupid me for not picking up on that. Thanks for clarifying, I was a bit dumbfounded by the thought that someone was all for fishing for sharks because they were scared of shark attacks.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
If green roofs were mandatory in cities would there be less development and building?
I'm wondering how these plants on green roofs get watered. Here in Oregon this probably is answered by rainfall, but what about in a place like Arizona? Do they have to pump water up to the top of the building to water the plants? If this is what happens I would be skeptical that green roofs are actually helping the problem in this case, especially on very tall buildings. Maybe I'm completely wrong and green roofs benefits would still outweigh the water cost even on really tall buildings in Arizona, but I have to think that perhaps placing solar panels on top of those buildings may be a better use of the space. I believe solar panels can accomplish the same absorption of light and reduce the cooling costs, and in areas with lots of sun and little rain their energy production may outweigh the other benefits of green roofs. I think in certain areas green roofs are a brilliant idea, in Portland for example I would love to see this law implemented. I don't think that requiring green roofs all over the country is a good idea. I think the government should offer incentives to cities to enact this law on their own, but leave it up to the city (or maybe the state) to decide whether they require green roofs. These more local governments should look into what would help their area the most.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
Should shark fishing be banned?
I understand that you place more value on culture and tradition than on the lives of these organisms. While I don't agree with your view on this, I came here to discuss your view that sharks are dangerous. "Although sharks are dangerous creatures whose primary goal is probably to do physical damage to humans" What? Sharks primary goal, along with every other creature, is to eat and to reproduce. Sharks rarely ever have any interaction with humans, and it only occurs when we get into their areas. Anyone who spends any time scuba diving will tell you they know the dangers they are facing. World wide, there are about 60 shark attacks each year. Not every one of those victims dies. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_attack) That is not a large number, especially in comparison to the 26-70 million shark fins harvested each year. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark_finning) My point is that shark attacks are not something anyone should be scared of. What is much more scary is considering the reverberations down the food chain that could happen if this apex predator is hunted to extinction. These are food chains that supply food for tons of humans all over the world. We would be much more negatively impacted by the loss of sharks then we currently are by the number of humans killed in shark attacks.
Noface
Mat Lisin
Posted about 3 years ago
Should Cannabis be legalized as a medicine?
First off, I am all for medicinal cannabis. There are just too many accounts of people with severe pain who have been helped by medicinal cannabis to humanely oppose the idea. By no means though does this mean that I think our current system is utilizing this drug effectively. When a patient is prescribed nearly any other drug, they are prescribed a fixed amount of it to be measured out for them by a pharmacist. Cannabis is considered a schedule I narcotic by the federal government, and because of this cannot be prescribed by a physician (at least not in Oregon). The way our states system works is that a grower is legally able to grow the cannabis for a medicinal card holder. That card holder is legally allowed to posses up to 24 ounces of cannabis, they are legally able to have in their possession 1.5lbs! Anyone who knows anything about the plant knows this is a staggering amount. When the patient is out of the plant they can just go back to the grower and obtain more. This system is flawed, and is creating the ability for people to abuse the drug. If the drug is not going to be legalized and we are going to continue to legally allow it only for medicinal purposes it should be prescribed like any other drug. Source: Oregon Medical Marijuana Program Handbook http://public.health.oregon.gov/DiseasesConditions/ChronicDisease/MedicalMarijuanaProgram/Documents/ommpHandbook.pdf Personally I think it should just be legalized. The economic benefits are undeniable, and the only dangerous aspect of the drug are legal ramifications created because the plant is illegal. It is a relatively harmless substance (compared to alcohol at least) and frankly seems un-American to tell people they cannot use a plant that naturally grows in this country.