I have been looking into global warming a bit lately. It was spawned by the random act of checking out "What's the Worst that Could Happen?" by Greg Craven. He is not an expert, but he plays one in the high school science classes he teaches. He wrote this book to help people think more objectively about, not who is right and wrong, but whether we should take action or not. He is obviously under the opinion that taking massive action immediately is the right way to go. I didn't find his book particularly helpful, but I would agree with one of his thoughts. The truth about what global warming is, how it works, and most of all what it will do to us in the future is not nearly as important as the actions we take or don't take. What I mean is that finding an alternative to using gas in cars is a good thing no matter why you are doing it. Trying to watch and clean what our power plants are spewing into the atmosphere can only be good, and looking into a variety of types of power sources can only be better for our future. Freaking out and rushing changes onto the likely causes of CO2 emissions may do more harm than good if our alternatives use more energy, or loads of money.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Global Warming and the state of Earth Improvement
Posted by Charlyn at 11:11 AM 0 comments
Labels: books, global warming, politics, science
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Twins and My Dilemma

Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Environmentalism as Religion
I love Earth. I think it is a great place to live, especially since I don't know of any other "Class M" planets within a reasonable distance to compare it to if I wanted to escape it. In reality though, I have as cushy a life as I could ask for, and I would love to ensure the same for my children and theirs. So I do care about the environment in the sense that I don't prefer worldwide annihilation within the next few generations. I teach my kids to pick up their trash. We have changed to compact fluorescent bulbs. We fill up the recycle bin. We re-use paper. Taking care of the earth is very nice at that involvement level. Many people worldwide however, have turned environmentalism into something entirely different, however. It would mean little to me if this only affected random far-spread cults. I see this belief system in people I meet daily, however, and I think that this perspective on environmental issues can hurt the earth, and science as a whole. The problem is clearly laid out in Michael Crichton's video, and also in this article by Robert Nelson, and this short blurb from the New York Times
My main point against environmentalism as religion is this: to truly solve a problem as complex as helping the earth to stay clean and life-supporting, we need to be able to pursue solutions that are truly beneficial in every aspect. In its present state, the environmental, sustainable movement, is so ensnarled in popular opinion, politics, and merchandising, that no one can get a clear idea of what is truly helping and what is hurting. Politicians say the right environmental thing so special interest groups will continue to fund them. Grocery stores and construction companies continue to sell high priced alternative items that say they are good for the environment, and people continue to ease their conscience by sacrificing a bit of extra money for what they consider to be the greater good. Maybe they are better for the environment. Where money is involved how can we know for sure? How environmentally conscious a person is has become an easy measure of their value in society. The problem becomes very apparent when huge amounts of money are sunk into technologies that are lovely in theory, but amount to crap in real life. I absolutely think we should be thinking about alternatives to all the fuel we consume, but if solar power in its present state is not a viable alternative we should be allowed to acknowledge that. If we are better off as far as money, pollution and waste is concerned, throwing plastic bottles in a landfill rather than trying to recycle them, or deluding the public into thinking they are being recycled, the environmental religion will not allow us to say so, lest we be black balled and proclaimed planet-haters or something. For science to work well: for real advancements to be made, we must be allowed to speak the truth. We must be allowed to be creative and think of things that would truly help on all levels. I think buying fewer plastic bottles, especially water bottles, would absolutely help the environment on most levels. Recycling them after I use them? I don't know if it is truly viable. Solar power, wind power, hydro power, these are all very nice thoughts, and they are all very good ideas, and in certain circumstances, like Hoover Dam, for instance, they work very well, but for these great ideas to be brought about into truly useful technologies we must be able to be honest. Solar and wind power are really in their infancy, and a lot of work will need to go into making them truly useful on the large scale. Possibly so much work that we would be better off trying to make the electronic devices we use more efficient first.
The truth is at stake if we believe every banana peel we put in the compost bin will save the earth. The truth is what will lead to real solutions, and no dogmatic, organized, unquestioning group of people will ever be able to absorb the sometimes messy, unbecoming, contradictory things that surface when one truly wants to know the truth. No religion likes too many questions, and without hard questions we won't get real answers.
Posted by Charlyn at 10:03 AM 0 comments
Labels: anthropology, Culture, environmentalism, quality of life, religion, science, Spirituality
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Longevity and my two cents
Many of my friends are very interested in things like eating organic, and having fewer pesticides and chemicals in the things they eat. There is a certain amount of emphasis put on being as natural as possible, basically reverting to the eating of previous generations. There are also other things involved in their eating decisions, such as the treatment of animals, and the environment. I think it is great for them to get satisfaction from these endeavors. In the bit of research I have done, however, eating healthy is just one of many factors that lead to a good quality of life, and longevity. Another major factor is obesity. Unfortunately, many of these same friends are overweight. Statistically speaking they would be better off doing whatever they had to to get their weight in a normal range. That would very likely indicate a diet high in fruits and vegetables, which they are already pros at, but also exercise. This is another activity that I see very little emphasis on in the healthy eating community. Another big contributing factor to longevity is stress management. Exercise helps control stress. Vital relationships and time out with friends also plays a role in longevity, probably because of it's tie to relieving stress. Interestingly, I have friends who have really never left their children since they were born years ago. I understand that children are wonderful, and I love mine, but at the same time I find that when I am around them my mind is constantly estimating the likelihood of them falling into catastrophic danger. When I am away from them and I know they are with a trusted grown-up I can concentrate on only one thing, which is just plain less energy consuming. There is a bit of a release in just being responsible for me, and there is also a bit of a self-confidence boost as I remind myself of the other parts of me that are interesting and valuable. There are actually very few friends I can count on to leave their families to foster strong friendships. I understand that all of my friends may not choose to spend their kidless social time with me (I do have a big mouth at times, after all) but I see little evidence that my mom friends are doing it elsewhere.
If raising chickens is a relaxing activity for you, and it contributes to your happiness, and self-satisfaction, then more power to you. The same goes for gardening. Some may say that I am deriding these activities because I don't like doing them and they are not relaxing for me, and that would be completely true. I don't like to garden. I don't want pets or chickens. So yes, I am easing my conscience, but at the same time, I don't see evidence that spending the extra time and money on doing these activities only because the products are more natural will make an appreciable difference in the quality of my life or longevity, especially if I am doing well on a variety of other planes. I exercise regularly, spend time with friends, do my best to relax and appreciate life, have regular sex (another key to longevity, for a variety of reasons). I have a lot of energy and I am completely healthy as far as I and any recent doctor visits can ascertain.
This leaves me with the strongest known factor in the determination of longevity. Genetics. Studies have shown that the length of your parents and grandparents lives is the most consistent determining factor in how long you will live. I have a grandma who will be 99 this year. "Go Grandma!" When I am interrogating my future sons and daughters in law I will make sure to find out how old their grandparents are (JK). Scientists are feverishly working on how to alter and enhance our DNA to make sure we all have the chance to endure a few more years of sitting in a wheelchair being offered a cookie in return for a smile, (like my Grandma) . Your next best bet for life extension after genetics is a calorie restrictive diet. It is another of the few scientifically proven ways of extending lifespan. You can find out more about that here. Notice that little mention is made of what those calories should consist of, though I believe a more-or-less balanced diet is assumed.
In short, I think agonizing over food choices is not the complete story when it comes to having a good and active life. I think running over to pick up that extra box of food from a local organic co-op may be better spent going for a jog, or spending an hour talking to a friend over lunch without kids, (even friends with big mouths and dissenting opinions). Being healthy will always be important. Mainstream media or even mainstream science will never have all of the facts about the food we eat, and what is truly the best for us, especially if those facts are not favorable to big business or big pharmaceuticals. But I also think it is flawed thinking to put all of the burden on advances in food production when it comes to lowering our quality of life. After all, lifespan is vastly longer now than it was in the time when we didn't have pesticides and relied on raw milk.
I had fun watching this entire video so feel free to watch the rest of it at PBS.
Watch the full episode. See more NOVA scienceNOW.
Here are some more links I found interesting:
Longevity and Genes
101 Ways to Increase Longevity and Quality of Life
100 Year Olds are as Unhealthy as the Rest of Us
Longevity and Aging
I also found a lot of great information in Merchants of Immortality
Posted by Charlyn at 12:42 PM 0 comments
Labels: aging, diet, longevity, quality of life, science

