Anders Hansen

Eugene, OR, United States

About Anders

Universities

University of Oregon

Comments & conversations

157872
Anders Hansen
Posted over 2 years ago
Do zoos help biodiversity conservation?
Many zoos are doing both. The Australia Zoo is currently running a conservation program for many species of the Oceania. These are species that have either gone extinct or critically endangered in past years and the zoo is helping to restore populations. I think most zoos should have programs similar to this. A percentage of their profit should be used for conservation of biodiversity. Also, I believe that nature conservancy organizations should join with zoos to increase the conservation methods that much more.
157872
Anders Hansen
Posted over 2 years ago
From ivory tower to prison cell: How can we bring conservation efforts to the public?
in order to make as big as an impact as possible, environmentalism needs to become part of every day life and habit. This means that we need to attack on all fronts, the wallet, the media, education, and community. First I will discuss the wallet. This can be broken down into personal and commercial. We can all agree that commercial emissions takes up the vast majority of the green house gases and pollution. Therefore as many have said before, we need a tax incentive for businesses to reduce their footprint and build more efficient buildings with better circulation and green roofs. This can also be tuned down to the personal level. Though many of these taxes are already in place, we need to increase the awareness and solutions to the issues with more legislation and public media. This brings me to my next point, education. As many have said before, we need to make the concepts of environmentalism available and "cool" for children. With education, children will begin implementing and informing their parents about ways to conserve. The media, being a reflection of our society, will soon follow. If children are interested in the environment, more shows and articles will be written about it. Finally, there's the community. In order to make environmentalism habit, we need to impliment in into daily life. This means the creation of compost and community gardens in urban areas and increasing the ease for reusing and recycling. I envision a new suburbia, one where lawns are replaced with crops and cars are replaced by public transit. This all starts with legislative backing and public support.
157872
Anders Hansen
Posted over 2 years ago
Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?
Helen, I agree with you that most of the time the acts by extremist groups are more harmful than helpful. However, a select few of these acts can change the views of a population. These extremists need to shed light on an issue without alienating the population. Violence and chaos is not the method to create a positive uprising. Instead, as you said, it often brings about negative feelings towards the issue at hand. Therefore, like Gandhi or MLK, these groups need to use nonviolent methods to "mainstream" the issue. The real argument between you and I arises from our definitions of extremist groups. With all the negative media coverage, I understand why you associate extremists with violent acts. I would encourage you to broaden your definition. An extremist group, in my mind, is any group that uses unconventional methods to make the public aware of an issue that needs to be addressed. Though this does include acts of violence, it is not restricted to these acts.
157872
Anders Hansen
Posted over 2 years ago
Do extremist tactics push environmentalism forwards or backwards?
Although I don't always agree with extremist acts I believe they are sometimes necessary for change. When the extremist's acts are founded with good judgement and performed in a correct manner, they can be very effective. These acts need to state the problem clearly and give the citizens a mode or idea to fix it. If a extremist group poses a very good argument without a solution, the group will have very little following. Most extremists act in ways that harm without helping the citizens to care or solve the issue. However, our history, as said before, is defined by extremist acts. Though mediation groups like Greenpeace are often useful and productive in solving the issue, we need "extremist groups" in order to get the issue into the media. So, although most extremist groups are destructive, I would argue that we need them to focus on the issues that plague the world today.
157872
Anders Hansen
Posted over 2 years ago
Should shark fishing be banned?
Both of you bring up valid points. I agree with you Beatrix, that culture is constantly evolving. I also agree that somewhere we need to draw a line and make certain things illegal, such as slavery. All I'm saying is we need to look at the issue from all sides before making decisions that could irreversibly change culture. I have no clue how important shark fins are to Chinese culture. To eliminate shark fins completely, I would need evidence that it plays a very minor role in their culture. Nickie, you bring up a great point about fishing regulations. Illegal fishing is rampant in the ocean. That's why I proposed creating an organization like the Fish and Wildlife Services of America. This organization uses the profits and license fees from fishing and hunting to enforce regulation. I may have not been clear, but In my response I proposed an alternative method of fish regulation. The pacific ocean needs an organization like the fish and wildlife service. This organization would use profits from fishing to help restore native fish hatcheries and enforce regulations. By making something "illegal" we may create a conflict and riots. Creating a fish organization would "go with the grain" creating less conflicts and still restoring native fish.
157872
Anders Hansen
Posted over 2 years ago
Should shark fishing be banned?
Though I do agree that regulations on commercial shark fishing should be increased, I don't think we need to abolish a cultural tradition. Instead we should help these countries maintain healthy watersheds. Over fishing has devastated fish hatcheries (especially sharks), but education, not termination is the key to success. By eliminating commercial fishing of sharks, local fisherman (non commercial) will benefit by having healthier fish populations and not have to give up a thousand year old tradition. If done correctly on a smaller scale, the fishing of sharks would not devastate the watershed, much like the US wildlife regulations on fishing in the U.S. Trying to abolish a cultural tradition is something that I find unethical. By stating that our way is "right" and theirs is "wrong," we are effectively dismissing thousands of years of tradition. With the aid of technology, cultures are mingling, quickly becoming homogenized. What about cultural diversity? The same Ideals of culture homogenization has led to some pretty awful things (aborigines, native american reservations). Though very dramatic examples, my point is that once a culture is lost, we can not retrieve it. I guess my question is, Should we dismiss a cultural tradition based on our western beliefs, or should we embrace the worlds cultural diversity? More importantly, where do we draw the line?
157872
Anders Hansen
Posted over 2 years ago
What is more important: Our drugs or our ecosystems?
I think pharmaceutical drug companies and the administrations that regulate their use should consider the drugs impact on the environment. Currently administrative companies only assess the impact of the drug on our bodies, not the impact of drugs on waterways and ecosystems. Although this would increase the development cost of the drug and therefore increase its price, its necessary to keep our ecosystems and corresponding services intact. As citizens, we should pressure the FDA into instigating new regulations in support of eco-friendly drugs. The drugs with negative impacts on biodiversity should be restricted from public use. This is not to say that drug companies are the only one to blame. In order to change things, we need to cut down our own consumption. There now seems to be a drug for every problem we face. If we decided to let our body solve some of the minor sicknesses and pains by exercising and eating right, we would greatly reduce the amount of drugs in our waterways.
157872
Anders Hansen
Posted over 2 years ago
What are ecosystem services that you rely on everyday? Are you willing to pay for them?
In my mind, I think the question is defining an ecosystem as a group of organisims and abiotic factors in a particular space that rely on each other. In this sense, although we do destroy "pristine" ecosystems and their corresponding services, we replace them with other services that supply us with food. I do agree that the destruction of "pristine" ecosystems is a terrible thing. Therefore we need to make man-made ecosystems, like agriculture, as efficient as possible. Agriculture methods that mimic preexisting ecosystems and use mutualism instead of pesticides and harmful chemicals are one way to make farming more efficient while having little disturbance as possible to the biodiversity of the world. If done correctly, I believe this form of organic farming is well worth its money.