Response to Butterfly Lessons

The claim made in "Butterfly Lessons" is that there are ways of evaluating global warming by observing the various adjustments made by species in response to a warmer climate. One of the ways that Kolber proves this point is by profiling the Bradshaw-Holzapfel Mosquito laboratory. They were able to prove that  changes in a mosquitos environment can have a direct effect on the genetic composition of subsequent generations. Proving this was monumental in that "they became the first researchers to demonstrate that global warming had begun to drive evolution." 

Subtle Queues from Natures Tiny Creatures

Butterfly Lessons informs that the evolutionary effects of global warming can already be seen in some species.
At first I was skeptical as to whether the migrational patters of butterflies or the breeding time for mosquitoes is really something that is relevant and important. It then occurred to me that these seemingly simple species have been adapting to subtle climate changes throughout their history. Their awareness of the environment and the way that they adapt to changes is could be an excellent alternative way of measuring global warming progress from a biological perspective. I believe that observing the variations that species are making to adapt to a warmer climate is a great gauge for measuring global warming.
Observing and publishing various indicators of global warming such as CO2 concentrations may be the most accurate form of analysis. Yet although this scientific data affects everyone, the general public may feel removed from global warming discussions purely because a lack of knowledge on what numbers like CO2 in parts per million indicate. If scientist can show how this scientific data affects everyday organism, like was done in "Butterfly Lessons", the public may too be able to recognize the problems facing our planet and act on it. 

A truly sophisticated culture

The culture of industrial society in 2011 measures the advancement of societies based on their technological achievements. Countries such as many in Africa and South America are labeled as "third world" or "developing" countries. These countries lack the wealth and technology that we as Americans consider to be the indicator of success within our society. Environmental thinker and philosopher Derrick Jensen contends in his book Endgame, "Within this culture wealth is measured by one's ability to consume and destroy." (Jensen). Yet perhaps the cultures that American people consider to be "lacking the sophistication level of industrialized worlds standards", are really in a better position to live a more sustainable and fulfilling life. Aboriginal people of Australia survived and thrived for 125,000 thousand years before modernized culture came into existence. Societies that have survived longer, with simpler technology and more localized technology, are actually more sophisticated and advanced than today's industrialized societies.

Jensen, Derrick. Endgame. Seven Stories Pr, 2007. Print.
http://books.google.com/books/feeds/volumes?q=158322730x 

Ignorant people are stupid

Some ask may inquire what it means to be in denial. Well let me tell you.

Being in denial means that you have been presented with overwhelming evidence that your view point is wrong, yet you still retain your incorrect stance. Many people continue to retain their incorrect stance because they are too embarrassed/prideful/arrogant/selfish/self-centered to accept otherwise. They believe that if they never cease to alter their viewpoint, regardless of the evidence presented against them, they can never be accused of being wrong because things are still inconclusive due to different active view points. This helps to uphold their arrogance/pride/selfishness/self-centeredness and prevents them from ever being accused of being wrong.

People like this are insecure. They probably are/have been outcasts within their society/school/social group/peers, and because of this they feel the need to make a statement by being extreme. Becoming drastic helps to make a name for oneself, thus making the person more noticeable than before. This can yield undesired affects though. Repeated offenses of refusing to back down in the face of overwhelming evidence will cause them to create a reputation for themselves. They may become know as "that guy (or girl)". Yet regardless of the amount of attention they receive, good or bad, they feel accomplished because they have become noticed.

I have seen this type of behavior manifested in many trouble kids who lack certain social skills that other peers around them may have. They begin to cling to topics that they are comfortable around, such as baseball knowledge or politics. When any of these "hot topics" arise in conversation, they may become dictating and overly confident, accusing everyone else as wrong.

In Class Writing Assignment

The first major theme of Luther Standing Bear's writing is the concept that the people of the Lakota tribe are in a mutual relationship with nature, as opposed to being the conquerors and dominators that he portrays the white Europeans to be. By having reverence for nature, the Lakota are able to have a higher respect to for all living things, humans included. The second theme of Luther Standing Bear's writing is that understanding and engaging in nature's "formative processes" allows cultures to have a more intimate relationship and history with the land.


The idea behind Chief Seattle's speech is that the time of the Native American is coming to an end. He acknowledges that the white man will inhabit their lands, but he contends that "Red Man" will continue to love the beautiful land in spirit and memory. 


The controversy over Chief Seattle's speech is whether he really gave this speech, or whether the man who recounted the speech, Dr. Smith, crafted it to reflect a popular sentiment at the time. This sentiment being the extinction of the native person by "civilized" culture. The fact that- Smith didn't speak Chief Seattle's language, that there is only one piece of evidence documenting this speech (Smith's newspaper article 30 years after the speech), and the fact that there is another "speech" by Chief Seattle that surfaced to be fake, all suppose that Smith's documentation of Seattle's speech is fake as well.


Arnold Krupat, in his article "Chief Seattle's Speech Revisited", contends that Dr. Smith may have possibly heard Chief Seattle speak, but it is doubtful that Chief Seattle gave a speech about Natives moving to reservation when Dr. Smith heard him speak on Seattle's Main Street (Krupat). Chief Seattle didn't begin negotiations concerning reservations until months later at Point Elliot (Krupat). Dr. Smith states in the preface of his article that he heard to Seattle's speech on Main Street, proving that he wasn't in the location where Chief Seattle most likely would have made a speech concerning the extinction of his people. Krupat states "Smith stated clearly that he produced Seattle's speech from notes he took at the meeting in Seattle in front of Dr. Maynard’s office. But those notes cannot have included matters that Sealth could only have raised at a later time." (Krupat).


I believe Arnold Krupat's theory as to what most likely happened. Dr. Smith was impressed by Chief Seattle's oratorical powers (from when he heard him speak on Main Street)(Krupat). During the 30 year period before he published his article, Dr. Smith most likely, whether on purpose or not, misconstrued the two speeches that Seattle gave into one (Krupat). Smith had access to notes taken at Point Elliot and he could have combined Seattle's oratorical powers that he had previously heard, with the notes he read expressing Seattle's sentiments at Point Elliot (Krupat). The controversy over Chief Seattle's speech isn't whether it actually occurred, but really where it occurred and whether Dr. Smith was present to witness it or not.

The Real Chief Seattle Speach

There has been controversy over whether Chief Seattle really gave the infamous speech that was portrayed by Dr. Smith. As stated in the preface of the article, some people believe that Smith "crafted" this article to portray a popular sentiment of the time, the disappearance of Indians. The fact that- Smith didn't speak Chief Seattle's language, that there is only one piece of evidence documenting this speech (Smith's newspaper article 30 years after the speech), and the fact that there is another "speech" by Chief Seattle that surfaced to be fake, all suppose that Smith's documentation of Seattle's speech is fake as well.


In his article, "Chief Seattle's Speech Revisited", Arnold Krupat contends that Dr. Smith may have possibly heard Chief Seattle speak, but it is highly unlikely that Seattle spoke about settling into a reservation when Dr. Smith heard him speak on Seattle's Main Street. Chief Seattle didn't begin negotiations concerning reservations until months later at Point Elliot and it is documented by Dr. Smith that he did not attend this speech. Krupat states "Smith stated clearly that he produced Sealth’s speech from notes he took at the meeting in Seattle in front of Dr. Maynard’s office. But those notes cannot have included matters that Sealth could only have raised at a later time." (Krupat)


I believe Arnold Krupat's theory as to what most likely happened. He believes that Dr. Smith was impressed by Chief Seattle's oratorical powers (from when he heard him speak on main street, not at Point Elliot where they negotiated about reservations). During the 30 year period before he published his article, Dr. Smith most likely, whether on purpose or not, misconstrued the two speeches that Seattle gave into one . Smith had access to notes taken at Point Elliot and he could have combined Seattle's oratorical powers (he witnessed this at an earlier date) with the notes he read expressing Seattle's sentiments at Point Elliot.


http://www.chiefseattle.com/history/chiefseattle/speech/speech.htm
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_indian_quarterly/v035/35.2.krupat.html

Something Remarkable

While walking to English today, I passed a funny looking car. It resembled an oversized golf cart, but still retained the funny little wheels that golf carts are notorious for. Wrapped around the entire exoskeleton of the car was obnoxious advertising say that this car was "completely electric"!! The car was designed and advertised in such a way that it lets every single person that comes across it know that this isn't just any ordinary car. 


Electric cars will only become assimilated into society when they are not made to create a scene. We are going to have to make the move over to a more sustainable means of transportation, but this needs to be done slowly and as unobtrusive possible. A comfortable transition to electric cars needs to be done by retaining classic body styles and colors that we are already accustomed to. 

There is already enough opposition towards moving away from combustion engine cars. The easiest way to deviate from our old technology is to do it slow and steady. Being loud and boisterous over every electric car that is produced is not the way.