final project

I will be creating a brochure about how to snorkel and what to look for in the local habitat in the Virgin Islands. I will include the typical marine life along with pictures and a diagram explaining the mask and snorkel. I will also include the benefits of protecting marine life and the proper way in which one should snorkel and take action of preserving the marine life. there will be colorful pictures and diagrams included.

Question B: Due Monday, November 25

Answer Question A or B.

Question B:

How did the movie and the book differ? What challenged you most about the movie? What struck you?

Question A: Due Monday, November 24

Answer either question A or B.

Question A:

Into the Wild began as an article, turned into a book, and then became a movie. What, in your estimation, makes Chris and his story so appealing? Why have this story captured so many people's attention?

Question B: Due Wednesday, November 19

Answer either question A or B.

Question B:

Do you think Krakauer's decision to insert himself into the narrative added to our detracted from Chris's story? Did it help you to understand how Krakauer came to interpret Chris's motives?

Question A: Due Wednesday, November 19

Answer either question A or B.

Question A:

Chapter 14 and 15 are devoted to Krakauer's own experience on the Stikine Ice Cap. What purpose does this extended story about Krakauer's adventure in Into the Wild?

The Great Search within the Wild

The mountains of Alaska are wild to the extreme. The dangers are staggering. Large, dangerous predators, snow year round in some places, unpredictable rivers, very, very few people in the vicinity. The planes that passed over where the Fairbanks City Transit System bus 142 were mostly just commercial jets at an altitude of 25,000 feet. The mosquitoes are enough to drive anyone crazy. In the Everglades, for example, there may be vast places of dense, treacherous wildnerness, yet it is surrounded by populated areas. Planes fly overhead more frequently. The vast majority is swampland and thus is flat and easy to see for miles around. In Alaska, the forest trees and mountains form more of a barrier between explorers and the outside world.
Was Alexander Supertramp crazy? No. He was socially adept, presumably had no suicidal thoughts or gestures. He had lots of energy and drive, was highly intelligent and was searching for something, and the combination allowed for him to become accustomed to succeeding quickly or faster than the normal rate at most things he attempted. “‘Chris was good at almost everything he ever tried,’ Walt (his father) reflects, ‘which made him supremely overconfident.’” (118) Chris was not humble in the sense that his actions do not reflect it. He had little respect for most boundaries that tie most of us down, such as longing for intimate interpersonal relationships and sex, money, physical insecurity in extreme situations. His excessive hubris clouded his view of reality and thus led him to not reflect and see the dangers of what Alaskan wilderness held. He was impulsive, and if something he attempted did not go the way he wanted, he ran off to the next thing quickly before the reality of his previous failure caught up with him. This is evident in later chapters when he is within the Alaskan bush. Somewhere in the book there is a quote that states by one getting lost in the wilderness, they are actually becoming more and touch with reality; thrown into relief by the extremes of the landscape. Perhaps Alexander Supertramp was searching for that reality he was unable to find anywhere else.

Question B: Due Monday, November 17

Answer either question a or question b.

Question B:
In Chapter 11 "Chesapeake Bay" we finally meet Chris' parents and his sister and we learn about Chris as a child. What do you think about Chris' relationship with his father?

Krakauer introduces Chapter 12, which includes Chris McCandless’s discovery of his father’s infidelity, with a quotation from GK Chesterton: “For children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.” Who is guilty in this story (e.g. the book), if anyone? Do they deserve justice or mercy?

• Chris’s relationship with his father?

Question A: Due Monday, November 17

Respond to either question A or question B.

Question A:

Last week I asked you to think about ways that Chris was like the other Alaska adventurers. Only a few of you answered the question and we did not get around to talking about Chris' similarities and differences to the other adventurers in class on Thursday. For this post, think about the chapters on Waterman and Everett Russ and how they are described.

Do you think Chris was suicidal or mentally ill or both or neither? Why or why not? If not, how would you describe Chris' state of mind as he walked "into the wild?"

Project 3: What are you going to do?

You need to meet with me sometime before Thanksgiving (and preferably this week or next) about your project. Come prepared with a topic, an audience, and a project. You need to convince me this is a solid final project for the course. These meetings are mandatory. If you do not meet with me ahead of time I will not accept your final project.

After our meeting you will post your project and your plans to the class blog as a kind of contract between us that you understand the requirements of the assignment. The post will also let you and your classmates draw inspiration from one another.

Use the comment link below to post your project plans--be as specific as possible.

Question B: Due Wednesday, November 12

Pick either A or B.

Question B:
Chapter 8 focuses on other "Alaska Types" (71) such as Rosselli the Mayor of Hippie Cove and Waterman. What does it mean to be an "Alaska Type?" In what ways did Chris fit this mold? In what ways was Chris different than the other adventurers discussed in the chapter?

Use the comment link below to post your response.

Question A: Due Wednesday, November 12

Pick either Question A or B.

Question A:

Chapter 6 is devoted to the friendship between Ronald Franz and Chris McCandless. Why do you think the connected like they did? Why do you think was able to develop such strong relationships with other tramps or other "outsiders" such as Jan Burres and Wayne Westerberg? What do you these friendships or bonds tell you about Chris?

Use the comment link below to answer this question.

Question B: Due Monday, November 10

Answer either question A or B.

Question B:

Krakauer opens each chapter with an excerpt from another book--Alexander/Chris' journal, Tolstoy, London. Why does he quote from these books? What role do these excerpts play in the story Krakauer is telling? How do the excerpts set the scene/mood/tone of the chapter they introduce?

Please respond by adding in your comment below.

Question A: Blog Assignment for Monday, November 10.

Answer either question A or B:

Question A:
In Into the Wild John Krakauer opens the book with Alexander/Chris' entrance into the Stampede Trail followed by a chapter on finding Alexander/Chris' body. Why does Krakauer open the books with these scenes? How do these scenes introduce us to Alexander/Chris and what do they tell us, the reader, about him?

Please respond to this question by adding in your comment below.

No Blog for Wednesday, October 29

Hi All,

I hope you all enjoyed fall break and finished reading Prodigal Summer. There is no blog tonight, but be ready to talk about the book and your responses to it tomorrow in class. See you bright and early in the morning!

Dr. Ramsey

exotic pet trade

The exotic animals industry has led to some very large problems facing our world today. Many people love the idea of having something unique as a pet whether it is a snake or a big cat. The problem with many of these animals is that often people do not know what they are getting themselves into. A Biremes Python may start off as only a few inches long but within a few years they can grow long enough of kill an alligator. It may seem like a great idea to keep a cute little baby raccoon or tiger as a pet but before you know it they grow big and become aggressive. The exotic animal trade is a large supporter of the animal black market, the illegal trade of animals and there parts, it is second only to drugs in the amount of money made in a given year. Many exotic pets are trap in the wide and smuggled through horrific means to arrive at a home were often the conditions are not much better. Many of these animals are endangered and those that are not will pose great threat to endangered ecosystems if they manage to escape or are released.

African Agriculture

I changed my topic to African agriculture and why it is important for Africa and the rest of the world.

William, M. A. (2005, Spring). Paying for Prosperity: How and Why to Invest in Agricultural Research
    and Development in Africa. Journal of International Affairs, 58(2). Retrieved October 20, 008,
    from Proquest database: http://proquest.umi.com/
    pqdweb?index=3&sid=7&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-1&clientid=11123&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=83
    3053371&scaling=FULL&ts=1224546704&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1224546719&clientId=11123

Massoud Karshenas (2001). Agriculture and economic development in sub-Saharan Africa and
Asia. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 25(3), 315-342. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from
Business Module database. (Document ID: 73205766).

Blog Assignment for Monday, October 20

Last week we spent time in the library learning how to use databases and find sources for the second essay: The Environmental Debate. For this blog, you need to create TWO correct citations for two of your sources. You need to indicate which citation style you are using (MLA, APA, Chicago Style) and then follow that with the two correct citations. These should be citations as they appear on the Works Cited Page or the Bibliography Page.

Do not create a new post, just use the "comment" link below this post.

Animal lovers

There are many different kinds of animal lovers. There are those who sympathize with animals out of compassion (even if they don’t quite understand them) , those who understand them because they depend on them for sport or livelihood, and those who love them because they feel a strong, powerful connection to the way animals behave and fit in with nature.
In Prodigal Summer, Eddie Bondo is one who understands animals because they gave his family sustenance, growing up on a sheep farm. He is well versed in what it means to own a farm, to have or perhaps hope for that perfect balance, being “on the edge of busted all the time” (180). His relationship with animals is based on need and want; he hunts coyotes because more coyotes mean less sheep. Also, hunting a predator is on some level an assertion of dominance, more of a thrill and adventure then hunting a mere herbivore such as a deer. When Eddie relates to animals, it is not in a selfless way.
Deanna is a different kind of animal lover. She does not blindly love all animals, as many so-called animal lovers do. She doesn’t even love individual animals; she loves individual species as a whole. She prefers to love animals from a distance. She goes as far as to say she would kill a stray cat if it came into the woods and wreak havoc on the natural forest ecosystem. Deanna shares a connection with animals that consumes her. She understands and justices her feelings about Eddie Bondo by relating to the way animals do. She responds to Eddie’s breath behind her earlobe “like a moth to a flame” (97). The entire chapter is called “Predators” symbolic of many things, one being how Eddie stalks and preys upon Deanna, upon her desire. Deanna is not easy prey; she refuses to trust him, warning him that if he shoots her precious coyote pups, she’ll put a bullet in his leg.

Question C: Due Wednesday, October 15

Reader's Choice:

I'm curious to hear your reactions to Prodigal Summer. What passages would you like to talk about? What interests you? What questions would you like to pose? Use this post as a chance to have an input in the direction of class discussions.

Rather than creating a new post, use the "comment" link below.

Question B: Due Wednesday, October 15

On pages 177-180 Deanna and Eddie talk about their own connections to animals, specifically predators. What does it mean for Deanna to be an animal lover? And for Eddie? Which position do you find yourself supporting or agreeing with? For either person, what is the relationship of humans and animals?

Rather than creating a new post, use the "comment" link below this post.

Question A: Due Wednesday, October 15

God, religion, and faith are recurring themes in the book. Look, for instance, at the letter Garnett writes Nannie discussing a passage from Genesis (186). For your post, think about how God or religion or a notion of a divine being is represented in the text. Where is God/divinity/faith in nature? What is the connection? Point to specific passages and pages as evidence for your claims.

Instead of creating a new post, simply use the "comment" link below this post.

Animal Rights in Florida

I feel like most people take the animal products we eat for granted because they do not eat an egg and wonder how the chicken was treated that created it. The process that allows us to have these products is not only harmful for the animals, but also for ourselves. I am going to research the treatment of chickens in factory farms and try to find out if people in St.Petersburg and Tampa are doing anything about it.

Research Paper: Cooking Hazardous or Healthy?

I am going to study methods used for cooking on campus and debate about it's cost versus it's effects and/or efficientness on the environment. I will have to interview the collage about it's choose in available supplies and the budget they have for that area.

research paper

the main focus of my paper will be on fish contamination from pollution in the ocean. I will be looking at how we are influenced through the food at the cafeteria.

R-GB

I am going to research the effects recycling has on Global Warming. How College campuses can improve their recycling to help reduce global warming. 

research

I would like to do research on the need for less plastic production. I want to emphasize ways we can cut down our individual plastic usage and propose ways to do this globally. For my active partcipation I am going to no buy anything in a plastic bottle for an entire week and see how that goes. I will reuse any plastic i currently have now.

RESEARCH PAPER

For my research paper I'm thinking about doing it on the pollution of the Tampa Bay water shed and estuaries. This is caused by fertilizer runoff from agricultural fields.One non Internet research I'm thinking about doing is measuring the pH in the water to see just how polluted the water really is.

For my research paper I want to research curbside recycling in St. Petersburg and why it is not offered as a public good.

The environment debate

My topic for the environment debate paper is the importance of great lakes conservation education, and how it can be improved

Topic for my Research...Healthy Food

For my Research Paper I am going to write about the Health regulations that food goes through before we eat it. I want to put special emphasize on pesticides and hormone enhancements put on certain foods and how to help people recognize and search for healthy food that contain the least amount of pesticides/hormones.
for my “non-book/non-internet source” I'm going to attempt to talk to the people in charge of getting food for the cafeteria and the pub and ask them what sort of Health Regulations they go through to ensure that the food we eat is safe.
I will also try to go to some local food fair near where I live and ask them if they have ways of producing food with the least use of pesticides and hormone implants

Topic for Research Paper

For my research paper I am going to write about natural disasters such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Tropical storm Fay struck near my home and fortunately the flooding was not devastating to my family and I. But for others in DeBary, a neighboring city close to home, the storm hit pretty badly and left people in floods chest high and destroyed homes. I want investigate and argue how this may have been avoided and what the government (FEMA) could be doing to help these unfortunate victims. For my “non-book/non-internet source” I am going to try and conduct an interview with one of the victims if possible, and during fall break I am going to see if I can explore the area myself to obtain further details.

Writing the Environment Topic

I would like to write my paper on non-point source pollution in New England.  I will argue that laws and regulations are inadequate, and do not protect bodies of water from the run-off pollution.  I will also offer alternative ways to help prevent this from causing any more harm to our rivers, lakes and oceans.  I will use studies conducted by the government testing pH levels, turbidity, dissolved oxygen and coliform bacteria of watersheds in New England.

The Topic of my Research Paper

I would like to do my research paper on the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. It is bigger than the state of New Jersey and it is caused from the lackof oxygen. Living creatures are not able to survive there.

The main focus of my paper will be on fish contamination from pollution in the ocean and how we are influenced through the food at the cafeteria.

Research Paper Topic

I would like to write my paper on some local issues going on back home having to do with the development/creation of marina's and docks on a local beach and on a completley undeveloped island, Inner Brass. This would lead to more development in the surrounding area which is a nice pirvate, somewhat un-developed local side of the island. There were many meetings and hearings about this idea, along with many petitions. I plan on trying to get copies of the bill the petition from my parents, along with some newspaper articles.

Changing an environment through art

I am interested in creating a topic on the types of modern art created to promote environmental activism. I want to give some examples of these types of art and how they affected peoples' views and lifestyles. I will examine what it takes to create an effective piece of activist art and go over what we can consider actual art. I am thinking of using a social project called ToroLab that is nearby and works on changing the social atmosphere of an area by implanting different biology and new environmental lifestyles/trends.

Research Paper Topic

I will write my paper about humans' effect on the manatee population in Tampa Bay. I will work alongside researchers in the pathobiology laboratory just outside of campus, where dead manatees are brought in and studied, as well as with the rescue branch of the fish and wildlife service.

manatee conservation

I am going to write my reserach paper on manatee conservation in Florida. It is much more effective for people of all ages to have hands-on experiences with organizations that rescue and rehabilitate these animals, rather than just hearing about it.

Brazilian Pepper & Invasive Plant Species in Florida

For my research paper i am going to be investigating the invasive plant species of Florida and in particular the Brazilian Pepper.  On campus we have a palm hammock that is infested with Brazilian Pepper and i am going to be working in the palm hammock on removing the Brazilian Pepper in a natural manner with no chemicals or extremely intrusive materials.

Billy

Paper Topic

I would like to do my research paper on the importance of Florida coral reefs - why we should keep these reefs safe and how we can do this. For my non-internet/non-book source I plan on conducting an interview.

Research topic

I want to do research on reclaimed water in Florida, and learning the benifits and disadvantages of the process. I plan on talking to the reclaimed water facility next to campus in order to form an argument on the matter.

topic of research

I would like to explore the problematic correlation between poor socioeconomic communities and the need, want and availability of healthy, natural, organic foods.

Exatic's run wild

I want to explore the topic of exotic pets in Florida and how they are causing problems to native wildlife when they are released. My resource can come from many locations, around this area.

Research Paper Topic

For my research paper, I want to research the birds and other wildlife on campus and argue about how we can better protect them and their habitat. 

Environmental Writing research paper topic

I plan to research the topic of offshore florida drilling and argue the side against it.

Question C: Due Wednesday, October 8

A theme within the book is that of predator and prey. Find a passage from Thursday's reading that relates to predator and prey and analyze it. Who is the predator (animal or human)? Who is the prey (animal or human)? How are they navigating this relationship? Is the entrance of the predator considered a positive or negative entrance?

Respond to this question by clicking on the "comment" link below. Feel free to respond to earlier answers to this question.

Question B: Due Wednesday, October 8

One of the themes in Prodigal Summer is that of insects, and moths to be specific. In these first 67 pages, what role do the moths play? What do we learn about moths? How do they reflect the situations of Deanna, Lusa, and Garnett?

Please respond to this question by creating a comment. Follow the comment link underneath this post. Feel free to respond to the comments left by others when considering this question.

Question A: Due Wednesday, October 8

Reflect on your visit to the Museum of Fine Arts and the Ansel Adams photo exhibit. Which "text" stood out to you? Why? How are these photos writing the environment? What are they saying?

Respond to this question by hitting the "comment" link underneath this post. Feel free to comment on other people's posts and their photo choices.

Consumerism and Nature

I think to some extent, many people living in America today have severed tied with nature to the point in that the only way they can comfortably relate to it is through consumerism. Being able to feel connected to and even comfortable in nature takes a certain open-mindedness and way of thinking, something many people have lost. There are many things to blame for this.
One contributor is the media and the constant advertisement strategies woven into people’s lives by large corporations all vying for the attention of the consumer in the capitalist society in which we exist. In a single day, we view dozens of ads or methods of advertisement. They cover public places, are ingrained in the entertainment we see or listen to, they even appear on us, on our clothing, our cars, even the food we eat. Everything available for sale has a group of people behind it, trying to make us identify with their product, to subconsciously want to buy more of it. Many people fall into the trap of identifying themselves with the things they own; indeed, the things we own end up owning us. Wealth has become a way of exerting dominance in today’s society, a fact that advertisers recognize and take advantage of. Being a consumer is also what drives our economy; its strength is dependent on the constant buying and selling of goods and services. There are many stimuli that contribute to the thought process lurking beneath the surface in many of us whispering “buy, buy, buy!”
Another inhibitor of people’s ability to connect with nature is the fact that the majority of people in America live in urban areas, away from nature entirely. It’s difficult to have a connection with nature if rarely even get to see it. Plato once wrote that the mind is like a sheep, always grazing, absorbing and eventually becoming everything around it. To a certain extent, this is true; the longer someone lives in an urban area, the greater their sense of connection to that place. A big part of living in harmony with nature and having that special connection is having access to natural areas and spending time immersed in nature. Though bits and pieces of nature can be found everywhere, it is impossible to describe to someone what it feels like to be surrounded by forest at night; it’s like trying to describe what chocolate tastes like to someone who has never tried it.
Despite these walls we have built that keep us away from living in sync with nature, it certainly inspires awe in most of us. Unfortunately, many people have difficulty understanding, or are even frightened by the thought of being immersed in nature. Perhaps it’s the wildness and uncertainty, or the disconnect that occurs when one ventures into places outside of civilization. Thus, people connect in a way they feel comfortable with and are well versed in: consumerism.
Overcoming this dilemma is no easy feat. It will take generations and significant changes in the way people think and live to be able to connect with nature body, mind and soul. However, we have to start some way. I think a good way to start is to try to own as little as possible, to try to use things as many times before acquiring new things, to be aware of how much we use and throw away. Do people really need ten pairs of jeans? An SUV? A manicure? A big house? A subscription to Cosmopolitan? The point is to start somewhere, even if it just means turning the light off when you leave the room. The best way of making a statement is by doing something, and hey, you never know who may be watching.

Response to "Nature At The Mall" [B]

I agree with Jennifer Price's statement that we, as human beings, have become separated from nature. She talks a lot about the fact that these "nature" stores have been placed in places that have nothing to do with nature and are far removed from it, like the gigantic Mall of America. "The Nature Company has billed itself as your direct connection to the natural world. But the stores connect us not so much to what nature is as to what nature means: they tap the powerful, meaningful routes by which we use nature to define who we are, and with which we have navigated late-twentieth century American life." [Price Pg. 174] In no way does the Nature Company directly connect anyone to the natural world itself, it more connects people to aspects of nature that they are either too lazy or too ignorant or busy to explore for themselves. Yes, it is a nice way to connect those who are not in touch with nature to nature, but what are we really doing? We are marketing natural aspects of the world for a higher profit to benefit world consumerism. This actually sickens me a little. Yes, I will have to admit that I have gone into these stores to see what kinds of goods they offer, but in no way do I connect these nature stores with nature itself. I believe that if one wants to really explore nature and see what it's all about, one has to go INTO nature itself and see what it is, create one’s own meaning of nature. I think that it is sad that those who can't experience nature directly associate these stores with nature itself.

"Nature at the Mall" Jennifer Price asks: "Is it possible that people in our culture have become so estranged from nature that their only avenue to it is consumerism?" (195). This is a pretty dire statement--do you agree? Are we too estranged or segregated from nature? How can we overcome that division?

I agree that people in our culture have become so estranged from nature that there only avenue is consumerism. They never experienced nature in person so they result to buying paintings, sculptures, and stuffed animals to put nature in the comfort of there own home. Most are just lazy but some enjoy backpacking and experiencing nature first hand. I feel natures company tried there best to make a connection between nature and the common man. They tried there best to model there products to look like how they would look if you was to see them in person. I don't think this was a good idea because it allowed people to be comfortable with going to the mall to experiencing nature instead of going hiking,backpacking,or biking to experience the right way. I feel most of us are too segregated from nature, especially in the world of today. I feel most kids are more concerned with when the next Halo coming out then going out and seeing what the outdoors have to offer. We can overcome this division by educating others about the importance and beauty of nature. Maybe more advertisements or vacation giveaways to spread the word.

Pollan's Style of Writing

After reading The Botany of Desire, I believe Michael Pollan is historian. I believe Pollan to be a historian because he tells these fascinating stories about these plants, and the role they played in human history. For example, he tells the story of how the British did not accept the potato, but the Irish were quite willing. Pollan states, “The debate was kicked off by the potato’s advocates, who argued that introducing a second staple would be a boon to England, a way to feed the poor when bread was dear and keep wages- which tended to track the price of bread- from rising,” (Pollan, 202). This is quote was taken half way into his story about the potato history. He also talks of history with the tulip, telling how people would spend ridiculous amounts of money in the hopes of getting a tulip. Michael Pollan states, “One crucial element of the beauty of the tulip that intoxicated the Dutch, the Turks, the French and the English has been lost to us. To them the tulip was a magic flower because it was prone to spontaneous and brilliant eruptions of color,” (Pollan, 87). This quote shows how many people held the tulip at high standards. Also, Pollan has a sense of humor when he talks about nature. During this tulip worshipping, he calls it “tulipomania”. Words such as this one make his writing sort of cenacle. He realizes the ridiculousness of these people’s actions, and makes it apparent in his writing. While he respects nature, he is not ridiculous or extreme in anyway. His writings are enjoyable to read.

A materialistic view of nature

“Is it possible that people in our culture have become so estranged from nature their only avenue to it is consumerism?” It is really hard for me to say whether or not I fully agree or disagree with this question. I do believe there are people that sadly enough have become separated from nature, but I also believe that there are plenty of people who resist consumerism and would rather enjoy the real wild nature than be inside the mall in a nature store. I feel that the nature company is a perfect example of a mediated view of nature, it has allowed people to experience nature in their comfort zone, this can be a good and bad thing. This mediated view of nature has given people the option to go to the mall and enjoy nature at the same time, but without the nature store people would have to enjoy the wild nature. But for people who sadly enough do not feel as if they have the time to enjoy wild nature than the nature company is perfect for them. The only problem is, these people who only see nature as materialistic are not really appreciating and seeing the nature world. I feel that it is very upsetting that people love nature but are too afraid to actually experience it first hand. I also think it is crazy that someone would spend $995 on a life-like bronze frog to have in their house, instead of just going outside and observing real frogs. I feel that we can overcome this division by looking deep within ourselves and understand that there is a difference between how we want to connect to nature and how we actually do. So when people walk into these nature stores and want to buy a CD composed of nature sounds, they should think about how they really want to connect to nature and go outside and listen to ‘live’ nature sounds out in the wild instead of pre-recorded ones.

Is there a future for nature?

In "Nature at the Mall" Jennifer Price asks: "Is it possible that people in our culture have become so estranged from nature that their only avenue to it is consumerism?" (195). This is a pretty dire statement--do you agree? Are we too estranged or segregated from nature? How can we overcome that division?

I believe that over time we have become more and more technologically dependent in our society and definately have drifted somewhat from our more primal state that once depended solely upon nature. I believe that this is not nessecarily a harmful thing, as long as we use our developing technology to better the natural environment around us. There is definately people that have not become too estranged from nature but has this group deminished so immensly that they will never be able to make an impact. It can be seen that in our society we want to make a difference to the changing and somewhat declining world around us, when dealing with matters of natural resources and our environment. There needs to be something done to overcome this division of between consumerism and the preservation of nature. This may begin with the instillment of knowlege upon kids our age that in time will be the ones making the decisions and policies that can change things for the better.

Reponse for Question C: Monday, October 6

Instead of creating a new post, hit the "comment" function underneath this post and create what is called a "thread." A thread is a kind of virtual conversation. Feel free to read other people's responses to this question and respond to their responses.

C. Price writes: "And in the pool of changing, countermodern meanings, the most powerful and overarching has always been that Nature is not a changing set of human meanings" (180). She speaks of meanings in the 1980s and 1990s, but what is the meaning of nature today? Is it the same set of meanings she identifies? Does the meaning of Nature remain the same or does it change? What is the meaning of nature for people in your generation?

Reponse for Question B: Monday, October 6

Instead of creating a new post, hit the "comment" function underneath this post and create what is called a "thread." A thread is a kind of virtual conversation. Feel free to read other people's responses to this question and respond to their responses.


B. In "Nature at the Mall" Jennifer Price asks: "Is it possible that people in our culture have become so estranged from nature that their only avenue to it is consumerism?" (195). This is a pretty dire statement--do you agree? Are we too estranged or segregated from nature? How can we overcome that division?

Reponse for Question A: Monday, October 6

A. Thus far we have read Dillard, Pollan, Price, and a selection of poems that all write about nature differently. How would you characterize Pollan's style of writing about the environment? Is he a historian? A philosopher? A naturalist? A scientist? Something else? Use specific evidence from the text to back up your claims.

Instead of creating a new post, hit the "comment" function underneath this post and create what is called a "thread." A thread is a kind of virtual conversation. Feel free to read other people's responses to this question and respond to their responses.

Blog Assignment for Monday, October 6.

Please respond to ONE of the following set of questions. You will note that I have created three separate blog entries, one for each of the questions. Find the entry for your question. Instead of creating a new post, hit the "comment" function underneath this post and create what is called a "thread." A thread is a kind of virtual conversation. Feel free to read other people's responses to the question and respond to their responses.

A. Thus far we have read Dillard, Pollan, Price, and a selection of poems that all write about nature differently. How would you characterize Pollan's style of writing about the environment? Is he a historian? A philosopher? A naturalist? A scientist? Something else? Use specific evidence from the text to back up your claims.

B. In "Nature at the Mall" Jennifer Price asks: "Is it possible that people in our culture have become so estranged from nature that their only avenue to it is consumerism?" (195). This is a pretty dire statement--do you agree? Are we too estranged or segregated from nature? How can we overcome that division?

C. Price writes: "And in the pool of changing, countermodern meanings, the most powerful and overarching has always been that Nature is not a changing set of human meanings" (180). She speaks of meanings in the 1980s and 1990s, but what is the meaning of nature today? Is it the same set of meanings she identifies? Does the meaning of Nature remain the same or does it change? What is the meaning of nature for people in your generation?

Genetics is messing with nature!

The Monsanto commercial is interesting, but to be frank I was put off from the start they used robots to try and show how technologically advanced they and their seeds were but as Pollan said in the reading we cannot be sure of the impacts that genetically altered food will have on us and the environment. This ad suggests that genetically perfect corn is the way of the future and that the third world countries should embrace it. Nature is not perfect and it seems as if the world is trying harder and harder to make it just that. If we mess too much with nature it always back fires on us. Genetics is no different we are messing with something that we do not understand and chances are it will cause far more problems than good. What’s wrong with the farms that are in place right now in India? Besides it is not like corn is a major part of their diet, rice does much better in that climate; genetically engineered corn won’t change that.

Advertising is stupid and Monsanto is no different. Robots are not better then people and perfect corn is not better any smart person should see this so I don’t get why the ad would be applying other then as a wait what moment.

Would I eat the GreenLeaf potatoes? No. I am a firm believer in doing what is best for the environment. Once something enters the biological web, it spreads all around, affecting many different levels of life. The Bt strand of bacteria that resides within the GreenLeaf potatoes is lethal to monarch butterflies. “When monarch caterpillars eat milkweed leaves dusted with Bt pollen, they sicken and die.” (Pollan, 211) How did the Bt pollen get onto the milkweed leaves? Bees and other animals that spread pollen may alight on the milkweed, carrying the pollen from NewLeaf potato flowers with them.
“Uncertainty is the theme that unifies most of the questions now being raised about agricultural biotechnology by environmentalists and scientists. By planting millions of acres of genetically altered plants, we’re introducing something novel into the environment and the food chain, the consequences of which are not completely understood.” (210) In nature, every living thing relies on balance. If one little thing throws off that balance, disaster is likely to ensue.

We've Probably Eaten Them Already

I would most defiantly eat the New Leaf Potato's that were altered because as Pollan suggests, "chances are I've eaten plenty of New Leafs already, at McDonald's or in bags of Frito-Lay chips, though without a label, there's no way of knowing for sure" (Pollan 235).  Since the technology has been around for years it is definite that anyone who has eaten any starch product has probably eaten some form of altered potato or any other food for that matter, bananas, green beans, grapes, you name it.  I say that i have no problem with it for two reasons.  One i see now harm right now in eating it, on the news, there are no reports of communities coming down with terrible illnesses due to altered fruit and or vegetables.  In my own body i see no difference when i eat food that could possibly be genetically altered and until i do or the population sees a problem the government will probably not outlaw it.  Secondly, it's food, are people serious that they would boycott this when people are starving all over the world.  Are people serious when they would rather tell people starving for food that they need to wait because the organic crop might have had an infestation of insects or maybe a frost destroyed it.  I personally could not do that if i was in a position of power to give out food.  if later on down the road, some reports of illness and death came about from my actions i would stand by them because in my mind, if the majority benefits a few people are going to be sacrificed for the major cause .

-Billy T

The Monsanto ad suggests that genetic engineering is the future, hence the use of the robots. It is almost condescending in a way to conventional and organic farmers like their practices and seeds are so last century. The corporation also give the impression that their seeds can feed third world countries. The problem I have with Monsanto's ad is that they do give the impression that they can feed these third world people, but the reason most third world countries are hungry is not cause there is no food, but because of poverty. They are only solving a symptom, not the problem.

These third world countries shouldn't depend on other wealthy countries, especially greedy corporations who just want profits. In a documentary by a French woman that aired on French television actually interviews people in India who have used Monsanto's seeds and men commit suicide because of poor yields. Here is a link to the video: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+world+according+to+monsanto&emb=0&aq=f#

or just go to google video and type in The World According to Monsanto

Bad commercial!!!

I watched the commercial online and found it extremely offensive. What bothered me is the idea that these new, high tech robots were coming in and invading someone else's land. It reminds me of the settlers coming in and invading the Native American's land. Ironically enough, i found a book in the library today called A River Runs Wild. It is about this river in Massachusets that the native americans lived on and kept clean. Then when we came and took over, we polluted the river into a swamp. The book caught my eye because of the title. It was a book i had in childhood! Such a random event, i sat and read the book this morning in the library. And then to see this advertisement tonight cements the theme of the day. I hated the image of these robots coming in to the Indian's land on the wooden plank and cattle. I thought the part where the robots walked up to the 'test field' was offensive. I hated the image of the packaged corn, it reminded me of the food packaging for astronauts or MREs for soldiers. I thought the part with the robot putting the seed into India's soil with his metal finger was such a bad metaphor of new technology invading what is natural and already there. It was blatantly clear that the robots had come out of surprise and that the Indians were hesitant of them. When the young girl shyly came out behind her parents back and carefully took the corn. It was as if the robots thought they were doing these people some monumental favor by giving them corn. I thought the commercial continued a terrible stereotype that third world countries desperately need our help and we are dominant over them and so on and so forth.
To really add insult to injury, the ad had to take place in india of third world countries. Two years ago, i lived in India for a semester so i feel as if i have a better understanding of the country than the average joe from america. And to know how the people and the self sufficiency of much of the country works and to then see this commercial basically say that the country couldnt figure things out on their own was so wrong.
This ad is just another way to show our ignorance about countries other than our own; how we invade and take over other countries (and their culture) even when we arent necessarily 'invited'. Thumbs down on this one.

I WOULDNT EAT A NEWLEAF POTATO...NOW

I wouldn't eat a new leaf potato now that i read this passage in Pollans book. He informed me on the different chemical agents that farmers and companies put on there products which turned me away from the french fries and mashed potato's. In the past I would eat just any old potato not knowing that its a possibility that it could not only be harmful to me but to other organisms. For example, he talks how the Bt toxin in genetically altered plants are building up in the soil, this substance is lethal to monarch butterflies which eat the weeds that are common in corn fields. Theres another substance called DDT that was thought to be safe, ended up thinning the shells in eggs. Sometimes you have to stop and think is it worth it, and I don't think it is. Its not worth contaminating your body with different chemicals and insecticides, plus I come to realize that organic foods are more appetizing. I guess Ms.Ramsey was right, I think I had my last french fry.

To Eat or Not To Eat

Reading this chapter on the growth and life cycle of potatoes gave me a lot of insight to how mass-production farming works. Most of the time, the idea is to produce as much edible food as possible, using the least amount of chemicals and money, in order to reap a higher profit. I understand the viewpoint Monsanto has of eliminating all of these harmful spray-on chemicals, and replacing a resistant gene inside the plant itself, but is this really natural? And is this their main idea when they thought of this idea, or were they more concerned with the amount of profit that would come in? There is no way that in the wild a plant would evolve in such a way. The plants might develop different tactics, smells, or colors to avert enemies and pests, but their genes would not transform to all of a sudden magically contain a pest-resistant toxin. To think about putting either of these forms of chemicals into my body scares me. In the past few years I have become more in-tune with my body and how it reacts to different foods that I eat, and thinking about ingesting such a hazardous chemical is frightening. No one knows the long-term effects of this process of implanting a pest-resistant gene into a plant, so therefore anything is possible in the long run. There may be absolutely no long-term effects, and there could be potentially deadly ones. I know I have probably eaten one of these NewLeaf potatoes, without knowing, and that is unfortunate but I’m not about to freak out about it. Obviously they are mostly safe to eat, as I have not heard of anything serious happening to anyone who has eaten one of these genetically modified potatoes, but just for peace of mind I would rather not eat them.
As Pollan dictates, "...genetically modified potatoes represent a more sustainable way of growing food. The problem is, that isn’t saying much."[Pg. 221] He goes on to explain that the reason for this is because the NewLeaf potato contains the Bt toxin that wards off pests, whereas other potato species don't so insects still prey on them. Heath, an organic farmer Pollan visits and talks with says, "I can eat any potato in this field right now. Most farmers can't eat their spuds out of the field." Just knowing that there is an unnatural chemical implanted into the genes of a vegetable the majority of the population eats frequently makes one think, just how healthy is the population? Do we really know what we’re putting into our bodies?

Would you try a NewLeaf potato

When I started reading the potato chapter, I was sure I would never try a NewLeaf potato. It seemed unnatural and something I did not want to put in my body. After yesterday's class discussion I was set on never eating one of these potatoes because the FDA would not even look at the nutritional value. They classified these potatoes as a pesticide. I have never really had the desire to eat a pesticide so I was definitely steering clear of those mutant potatoes. Then I finished reading the potato chapter. I discovered that, I, like many other people, have been eating potatoes that were not in anyway better than these NewLeaf potatoes. The potatoes grown on many farms have a lot of pesticides on them to kill the bugs. Michael Pollan states, “Net necrosis is a purely cosmetic defect, yet because McDonald’s believes- with good reason- that we don’t like to see brown spots in our French fries, farmers like Danny Forsyth must spray their fields with some of the most toxic chemicals now in use, including an organophosphate called Monitor,” (Pollan, 219). This to me is absurd. Growing up in Pennsylvania, in an area that is what I would call “potato happy”, I have probably eaten my fair share of toxins with out knowing it for cosmetic reasons. Pollan goes on to state, “’Monitor is a deadly chemical,’ Forsyth told me; it is known to damage the human nervous. ‘I won’t go into a field for four or five days after it’s been sprayed- not even to fix a broken pivot.’ That is, Forsyth would sooner lose a whole circle to drought than expose himself or an employee to this poison,” (Pollan, 219). That is scary to think about. That sounds very unhealthy. I was not aware of the toxins I eat daily on my potatoes. All of this proves that, while its astonishing that I had no idea what I have been eating, I think my stomach can handle the NewLeaf potato. After this recent discovery of what I have been putting in my body, the NewLeaf potato seems appealing compared to the potatoes with many toxins.

Less is Best

The NewLeaf potato had defied reality. Agriculture has reached a new height by introducing this potato to our local farm stands. Mankind has come along way since the first plow. To some farmers, a resilient plant that could produce its own insecticide was thought to be pure science fiction; however, today it is a fact of life. Even though, this is an amazing new discovery, I’d rather admire the plant, not put this genetically modified plant into my body. We do not yet entirely know the consequences of putting chemicals, such as BT, into our system. Due to the NewLeaf being on the market for such a short amount of time, it is near impossible to prove future complications of these chemically induced plants. I prefer the natural farming methods. Throughout history, America has mastered the art of farming without having to resort to chemicals. But today we see almost every farmer becoming too comfortable when injecting our produce with unnatural modifications. I feel that farmers have become lazy if they have become dependent on chemicals doing all the work for them. With these artificial ingredients, all farmers have to do is plant and harvest their crop. But who know! Maybe one day we will genetically engineer plants to plant and harvest themselves as well. Farming without chemicals and genetic engineering may be much more difficult, but I truly believe that it will be better for our health in the long run.

Why does Pollan uses italicized dates? the importance of parallel maybe?

The first thing to notice about the way Pollan uses his italicized dates on the chapter of the potato is that they are divided between the present-modern day and past. They are used to emphasize parallels between what things of importance to the potato are happening now and the things of importance that happened regarding the potato back them. That, the key: that all dates in this chapter are in one way or another Very important to understand the history and progression of the potato, and so both parallel Both parallels start with the beginning of the potato: the “past” dates are chronicles of the evolution and progression of the original potato.. The past dates describe the grow and cultivation of the potato, and how it began to take form in 1532, its introduction to Europe and its assimilation to the Irish food-choices in 1588, how the opposition to it began to escalate the challenge of England to the potato in 1794, and finally the period of “the potato famine” and its devastating effects on the Irish in 1846. The “modern day” dates chronicle the progression of the “new” potato- The New Leaf. But, there is another difference: while the “past” chronicles of the potato emphasize a year and place, the modern chronicles emphasize the days and months: showing step-by-step the growth of the potato. This distinction makes the past chronicles focus on the general influence of the potato as a “mother” plant, and the modern day emphasize on the progression and influence of the New Leaf potato as the “offspring” plant. In the past chronicle is about the potato influence on people and the modern about people influencing the nature of the potato. In the end both set of dates come full circle- The past show how the potato came to us and what it brought and the modern day shows the uncertain “re-birth” of the potato and its future role in nature and in people food choice.

Space Robots?

The Monsanto commercial starts out showing some natives interacting with happy upbeat ethnic music in the background. Then we see, for American, an old fashion way of transportation, with ox and a buggy. The oxen are carrying two robots that look as if they have just come down from space. The people of the town are obviously curious to what these creatures are and what they are doing! Of course! They go straight to the farms where they belong. When doing the farming they mix old forms of production, the plowing with oxen and “new” forms, the machines spitting out corns seed packets and shooting, instead of planting, the seeds in the ground. The corn grows at miraculous speed and the most esthetically pleasing corn you have ever seen. Just look at the native faces. The little girl doesn’t know whether to be scared or not of this space, farming, robot, but don’t worry he knows how to share.

            Monsanto must be advanced and technologically savvy with their farming. The old ways of farming, like in 3^rd world countries is not fast enough. So they have come to help. To make the food “better,” by growing faster, looking better, and more of it with less work. I don’t even know what to think of this commercial. It is so absurd the way they are comparing genetic engineering to be like robots doing all the work and the people being happy and buddy-buddy with the robots in the end. I would like to know what genetic engineering is actually doing for the third world countries. 

To Eat the New Leaf or To Not Eat the New Leaf, that is the question...

Since I fear that almost everything I eat has the possibility of being unsafe in one way or another, I would at this point of my life eat a New Leaf potato. This genetically engineered potato has not yet been proven to be bad for one’s health, (although it most likely has some dangerous side affects). Pollan also proved, in his chapter about potatoes, that the New Leaf is safer to eat than the average farm raised potato which is covered in lethal pesticides. (Even though this is only because there has not been any published knowledge about its dangers, while pesticides have proven to be toxic). I feel that at this point of my life, my body is at its prime and I can fight off disease and illness better now, than at other stages of my life. However, I will still make strong attempts to eat an organically grown potato over a New Leaf. Also, when I get older, I hope to be able to either shop organically, or have my own garden so that I can ensure the safety of my health. After reading the potato chapter, I also feel that it is an obligation to shop organically in order to support those hardworking organic farmers who resist the temptations of Monsanto and the exploitation of pesticides. It is like making a choice of being a vegetarian, you not only benefit yourself, but you also help the cause by being one less that responds to the inhumane and unnatural treatment of living things whether it be plants or animals. Still, economically this will be an extremely tough feat, but then again, changing the world is never an easy task.

Would YOU eat the NewLeaf potato?

My first reaction to whether or not I would eat the NewLeaf potato is no, of course not! This potato is genetically engineered and has pesticides in its genetic material. The FDA states that the potato is not even a potato, but actually deems it as a pesticide. I don’t want to eat a pesticide! Do you? I might as well walk around Danny Forsyth’s farm field after all the toxic chemicals are sprayed, such as the organophosphate called monitor. Monitor is a toxic chemical used in his farm to create the “perfect” Idaho potato, it is perfect as long as the individual who eats the potato at McDonalds doesn’t know the chemicals used in growing the potato, can damage a persons nervous system. Plus why do I want to eat the NewLeaf potato and support the killings of Colorado potato beetles and monarch butterflies? The farms where these potatoes are being grown are homes for the beetles and butterflies. I mean just imagine a huge super size bug, comes into your home, sprays fertilizers and pesticides so that you cannot live there anymore! Think about it? I know all that sounds silly, but eating the NewLeaf potato is supporting the killing of all these insects, but I guess so is eating any potato. Not only am I concerned for the lives of these little creatures, but what about my health? Towards the end of the chapter Pollan revisits the fact that Bt is the pesticide in NewLeaf. Pollan couldn’t find evidence that the potato wasn’t safe to eat, but he also couldn’t find evidence that Bt is safe in the human diet either. So all in all I wouldn’t want to eat the NewLeaf potato, but whether by choice or not, who is to say I haven’t already?

The Commercial Says it All!

The commercial depicts Monsanto as a new-age idea that comes from the future and brings forth plentiful crops, which look perfect. However, after reviewing the Monsanto commercial, it seems as though the new seeds that are constructed by Monsanto are unnatural. The robot that is bringing the seed seems to come from the future which is frightening because this alludes to the idea that the future will be totally artificial. The seeds that the robots plant come out of plastic bags which is troubling all on its own; and raising questions such as, where is this seed coming from, and why should a natural entity come in a man-made container in order to produce a “plant” which will then be consumed by man. It is not far off to say that the future and perhaps the present involves a completely synthetic form of nourishment.
Although the commercial is geared to attract the people of India, there is a sign in English that reads “test field”. This shows that Monsanto views 3-world countries as expendable regions, where the people and the land are used as guinea pigs. Also, the fact that the sign read test field is proof that the seeds that Monsanto brings are only in the test phase which means that there is room for error. The commercial also shows the robots taking over the oxen, which in truth means that Monsanto is taking over agriculture. It is replacing the essence of a culture, which is based around dedication, hard work, and other elements of farming.

Would I eat the New Leaf?

I wouldn't consciously choose to eat a genetically engineered vegetable over a naturally grown one, but I'm pretty sure that we've all eaten them at some point in time. I haven't been able to taste a difference, but maybe that's because I haven't been aware of what I am actually eating. I think that a lot of people go overboard with their stands against genetically engineered food. While there are some health uncertainties about them, the potential for these foods to help solve world hunger is immense. Seeds with built in insect repellants will make the farming process a lot more effecient, which will ensure more food to countries across the globe that are suffering from food shortages. Also, using seeds built to repel diseases and insects makes the farming process easier for the farmers. In Botany of Desire, Pollan said that, "farmers will spend roughly $1,950 a year on chemicals, electricity, and water to grow a crop that will earn him $2,00"(Pollan 219). Using pesticides and chemicals takes away from the profit that farmers are making, and is contributing to the diminishing number of small family farms and the rise of large scale corporate farms. Genetically engineered seeds will allow farmers to save the money they would have previously spent on chemicals and fertilizers. This could be the difference of staying afloat and getting bought out by a big company for smaller farms. By keeping smaller farms in the agriculture industry, farming won't become like the factories that the big corporate farms have become. I believe in the importance of having small, privately owned farms and in the importance of growing food efficiently. Using genetically engineered seeds will greatly aid in these two issues. Because of that, I don't have a problem eating genetically engineered food. I support it for the greater good that it will serve our society.

Why does Pollan include so many dates in the chapter? ...

Pollan includes dates in the chapter to act like a timeline so that as he is changing thought, the reader won't get confused or lost. They are italicized to show importance so that the reader doesn't skip over them. He also use the different dates to relate back to the chapter. Like in the potato chapter, he goes back to the Andes in1532 as a reference to the potato he was about to plant. He goes into detail about the ancestors of his potatoes. He also use the dates to show the process of growing the new leaf potatoes. He first starts May 2 and ends in August. The places help the reader know where the scene is. They can then think about the weather conditions in that place and how crops could be effected. The time is used so the reader can think back to that time and see how the people lived and the conditions they lived in.

Catchy Yet Deceiving

The Monsanto commercial implies what the company hopes to offer the community with their new seeds, yet leaves out important aspects required for these new and improved seeds to grow. There is no doubt about it, the commercial in general is very effective in depicting how Monsanto views their technologically advanced seeds which are shown being grown using the traditional farming methods on previously existing farms. Monsanto, in a way, makes these seeds look almost magical, as if once the seeds are planted they will magically and miraculously grow healthy and strong producing an abundance of corn. However, Monsanto completely forgets to depict how important water and proper irrigation is in helping these new crops grow. Could this have been left out by accident or do most third world farms not have the irrigation methods needed to properly grow Monsanto crops? Hmm….I wonder….
This ad seems to imply that farmers in third world countries are behind on the times. The ad shows many men sitting around talking with only one woman working on the harvest. The fact strange robots can suddenly arrive and show the citizens how to farm better on their own land should be somewhat insulting. However, when the robot hands the young girl an ear of corn, she only hesitates for a second looking at her mother for approval and then cheerfully accepts.
Monsanto showing robots in their commercial implies that farming with genetically engineered seeds is the way of the future. Although it is new now, farmers shouldn’t be skeptical of these new seeds for one day they will be commonplace.

Monsanto Rules!

The Monsanto add shows people from India on their farm. Then these robots come in and start working on the land, produce packaged corn seeds, plant them, and the corn grows perfectly. The robots take over the farm and do all of the labor. One of the robots hands a cob of corn to a little girl. At the end, the family and robots are standing together like a family with a huge pile of corn behind them. The add suggests that Monsanto is number one and has the best seeds for mass farming. Their seeds grow to be the perfect product everytime. Also, that the company is looking out for the people who are less fortunate in third world countries. Monsanto is the future of farming. The present has third world coutries such as India, with families working out on the field, farming the traditional and less efficient way. Monsanto shows the future with robots representing their seeds that are going to be what are planted for mass growing and perfection. everytime. Also the add might have included robots to literally tell us that robots are going to be created to do the farming for us and use their product. Third world countries, such as India, are going to be forced to use these seeds because that is what the people and companies are going to want. Monsanto wanted to display the message that they are there for the people who work those farms and to make their lives better and easier.

Monsanto can do it better! :)

So I have just watched this Monsanto ad and I am sort of feeling a bit confused about it. First of all, it just seems really out of place to have robots in a field doing farm work. It took me a second to get over this and actually pay attention to what they were doing. But from what I gathered the Monsanto ad placed robots above people and expressed the point that robots can do it better. That was my initial reaction though; I just watched it a second time and saw another way to interpret it. It seems like the robots are taking place of human labor, or perhaps that the future is now because robots are usually associated with the future. The ad also appears to stress that Monsanto can produce good quality crops in mass quantities (i.e. the huge piles of corn behind the people). Either way, the robots seemed to be taking over and providing for the people rather then having them do it themselves. I am not sure exactly what to think about this ad because on one hand the people look confused yet happy that the robots were there, but then again what is Monsanto trying to say about those specific people? It appears that they are suggesting that they can not provide well enough for themselves and therefore Monsanto must interfere. The present is not good enough and must be improved. When it comes down to it I think the ad is saying that Monsanto is the future of agriculture and look, these people are happy about it so it must be a good thing.

Blog Assignment for Wednesday, October 1

Answer 1 of the following set of questions:

A. Go to the Moodle site and follow the link under this week's section to the Monsanto advertisement. Watch the add and analyze it: What is suggested about Monsanto? About the present? About the future? About third world countries?

B. Would you eat the New Leaf? Why or why not?

C. Why does Pollan include so many dates in the chapter? Why are they italicized? What function do they serve in the chapter?

Genetic Engineering, Friend or Foe?

“Genetic engineering promises to replace expensive and toxic chemicals with expensive and but apparently benign genetic information: crops that can protect themselves from insects and diseases without the help of pesticides.” (Pollan, 191). Genetic engineering can be beneficial in that it can feed more people more quickly, wasting less crops. In a way, genetic engineering replicates nature in that it creates hybrids to withstand environmental hazards, increasing an organism’s chances of survival.
Genetic engineering dates back to the time of the Incas. “A more or less vertical habitat presents special challenges to both plants and their cultivators, because the microclimate changes dramatically with every change in altitude or orientation to the sun and wind.” (193) The Incans found a way of working around this obstacle by planting potatoes suited for different microclimates in patches. The difference between this modification and today’s genetic engineering is that the Incans worked with the land as best they could, instead of trying to develop a radically different form of organism to fit the land and preferred growing style. “To Western eyes, the resulting farms (of the Incas) look patchy and chaotic; the plots are discontinuous, offering none of that Apollonian satisfaction of an explicitly ordered landscape.”
Though growing crops in strait lines may be easier when it comes to treatment and harvest, I believe that trying to grow things in accordance with the land produces a more sustainable result. Some organic farmers grow crops together, such as flowers that need shade under fruit-bearing trees, a less “orderly” yet equally profiting method of growing useful plants. By carefully observing and trying to play along with nature’s ways, we can provide ourselves with a more sustainable future.

Are farms part of nature? Are they more or less "natural' than say a garden?

Nature consist of different species growing amongst each other. Those species adapt to the weather. They find ways to protect themselves against pathogens and herbivores. They used the herbivores as a way of reproduction. The herbivores carry the seeds to other places to grow. So yes, I think farms are a part of nature. The farmer goes different types of vegetables and fruits. He finds way to protect them against weather and he grows them in seasons that he knows they will do well. He uses pesticides to prevent damage by pests. The farmer is used to move them around so that they can reproduce.

A garden is the same as a farm. The gardener follows the same steps to prevent damage to their flowers. Both the farm and garden needs the help of people to continue to grow. Without, the garden will be overrun by weeds. So when it comes to "natural", neither is more natural than the other.

Question B

In terms of attempting to solve world hunger and food shortages, genetic altering food is a good thing. By developing strains of vegetables that are able to withstand the elements better and resist certain bacterium, a stable flow of food can be better established. Whether or not this is a good thing to put in our bodies is simply a personal choice. While genetically altered foods could nourish impoverished parts of the world, I can also understand where opponents to genetically altered food come from. Pollan stated that, "it allows a larger portion of human culture and intelligence to be incorporated into the plants themselves" (Pollan 198). Adding human influence into certain parts of nature is defeating the essential purpose of having nature in the first place. The beauty and simplicity of nature providing us with nourishment is quickly dirtied by our technology that we think is going to improve everything we touch. Again, this is also a matter of opinion, whether or not human influence should exist in all parts of nature, like plant life. I believe that using genetically altered food should only take place in last resort situations, like in extremely famished parts of our society. I think that it's important to remain reliant on the plain ways of nature, in order to maintain the closest connection with it. When we influence nature with human intelligence, we are taking away the uniqueness of nature bit by bit, and before we know it, it will be gone. It's a difficult question to debate, and I don't think that a concise answer as to whether or not genetically altered foods is a good thing exists. It's merely a matter of opinion and perspective.

Defending Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is something that allows humans to manipulate the environment in order to benefit themselves. Although it has its fault, genetic engineering can also be looked at as a good thing. With the advancements of genetic engineering, humans can organize, simplify, and control the ever complex ways of nature. It allows humans to experiment with genes in order to create new species which may have not been otherwise created (this means more variety of sustenance). In the reading, Pollan states that genetic engineering allows farmers to produce a mass quantity of food. However, he also goes on to say how the production of such a large amount of produce is impossible with out the harmful “inputs” that go along with genetic engineering. Still, since genetic engineering has become such a huge and influential industry, it has begun steps toward redeeming itself. “Genetic engineering promises to replace expensive and toxic chemicals with expensive but apparently benign genetic information…” (191). This means that through genetic engineering, there comes a sort of revolution where produce such as the NewLeaf potato can protect itself from insects and diseases, which means more food that is supposedly safe to eat. Moreover, genetic engineering can be looked at as a way to test methods of reliable yet safe new sources of food and food production.

Farms

I was reading through other posts on the farm question and came across one that i found interesting. The person had said that a farm was less natural because you have to work on it and that a garden was more natural because it was done for pleasure. I disagree. I believe that farms are completely a part of nature.
Let's back up to a simple definition on nature (found at dictionary.com): surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.
Using this definition, neither farms or gardens fall under the category of 'nature' because neither one exists independently of our activities. I thought that the definition of nature itself adding a new, complicate dimension to the discussion. But for arguments sake, i am going to say that both farms and gardens are a part of nature.
Why should work hinder a farm's qualifications for being a part of nature? We must work in gardens as well to keep them flourishing.
I can understand where people are coming from with the stereotype that farms now a days are a complete disaster area. Cows receiving unnatural hormone injections, dozens of chickens being locked together in a single cage for their entire lives; these are the examples that society is flooded with from the media especially. If this was my only point of reference when i thought about farms, then i might agree that they can scarcely be considered anything natural.
However, for a week this summer i worked on a farm. The main purpose of the farm was to produce natural, raw milk. This means that the milk is not pasteurized and the cows are not being injected with crazy growth hormones. They would roam in large grass expanses and get plenty of exercise. And to talk about natural, raw milk is one of the HEALTHIEST and most natural things a human can consume. The stereotype with raw milk is that it is unsanitary and can make you sick, however that stereotype is outdated. The milk is completely fine if (just like most things we consume) it is being bottled in a clean and sanitary place. (which it was as i spend some time in the bottling room wearing gloves, hair nets, aprons, etc) On top of the natural milk being produced, the farm also had (can you guess it??) a garden! Rhubarb was one of the best things grown and it was used for all sorts of foods, pies, etc. These people really lived off the land, ate as naturally and simply as i knew and were definitely immersed in the natural world.
Humans manipulate both gardens and farms to get what they want from each. However, if people can educate themselves about what many farms are actually like in reality, versus the stereotypes the media like to portray(which is hard to do without something like a first hand experience) than i believe that society would have a better relationship with farms and therefore see how they are just as much a part of nature as gardens are. (Which, according to dictionary.com, neither should be considered a part of nature to begin with- but that's a different discussion!)

Is farms part of nature?

There will be different opinions on this question because some people have different views on what they think nature is. Some people feel that nature is just trees, plants, grass, or even insects and not the order in which God do things. Order as in a field of roses by a lake bed, or a sugar cane field right next to a colony of orange trees. I feel that anything that's tampered by man wont originally appear in nature. A garden groups different plants together that wont appear in nature and grow them side by side to use them for there own means. This tampers with the order so therefore gardens and farm aren't nature, that's just my opinion.

frams, factories and gardens

Farms today are no more apart of nature then the creations and hybrids that scientists make in labs. That does not mean that a farm can’t be natural though, it just means that most are not. I have worked on and off sense I was five on a biodynamic farm. Everything was reused and nothing was wasted. We and the plants had formed a symbiotic relationship. The potatoes that we grow never were touched by pesticides and we found good means of keeping insects at by bringing in other less important plats that the bugs could eat. But the potato farms in Idaho are so different I was fascinated to read about pollens views on potatoes and how they had truly adapted humans to their needs. “Fast food Nation” by Eric Schlosser, proved that potatoes are the most wildly used food resource in the United States. Idaho is the potage state and most of the farms are anything but natural. But these are large scale production. Local farmers live a very different life style then the large potato factories. They care for the plants and find ways to work with the world around them. These small scale farmers are gardeners and so those farms are no different then gardens. Farms work with the environment large scale production facility of potatoes genetically alters or not are factories not farms.

A few good things about genetic engineering

Genetic engineering has enabled humans to posses control over "nature's wildness" (Pollan 184). With genetic modifications, we have been able to create the exact type of plant specie we want. Brighter, more vivid flowers have been created, along with sweeter strawberries, larger produce and has also increased the overall survival of many plant species. Genetic modifications have lowered expenses, and have enabled faster production of agricultural business. Pollan created a potato that protected itself from the Colorodo potato beetle, called New Leaf (Pollan 191). In doing this, the use of pesticides and chemical toxins are not needed. These are definitely pros of genetic engineering, but where do we draw the line?

"For the first time the genome itself is being domesticated" (Pollan 197). This shows technological advancements, but at the same time I feel threatened by this as well. It brings me to the questions of how far can humans go? There isn't much known about the long term effects of genetically modified foods. This scares me. Sometimes the desire to control gets stretched farther than it needs to go. We always want and need to do more. What if we create something that destroys us all, killing life as we know it here on Earth. I guess with every issue there are pros and cons. I feel that when it comes to my food, that I am eating to nourish my body, I want to be sure it won't harm me in the long run, because technically I would slowly be killing myself. Most food companies are not required by law to label whether or not that product is genetically modified. I think that by saying it is, that would scare away the consumer, thus losing business for the company producing it.

We have only just begun to dabble into the experimentation of genetics, and I agree that there have been good things that come out of it, however until more is known regarding long term effects, genetically modified foods scare me. Sadly, it is hard to stay 100% away from these foods, because they are everywhere.

Does Nature mean Natural?

     In my opinion, farms ARE a part of nature, just not in the usual sense of the word.  Farms came into being when people decided to have convenient food stores:  foods that were easily accessible.  Farms were cultivated to be a certain kind in which you get the most value out of a food.  Therefore, this was a natural step of evolution.  So, in this sense, farms are a part of nature.  However, farms would not be a part of nature if we as humans were not in the food chain. 

      Even though farms are a PART of nature, I believe that farms aren’t actually NATURAL, and neither are gardens.   Both gardens and farms are parts of nature when they are done, but the concept is unnatural.  For example, most plants that are planted in either a garden or a crop field are usually not native to the area.  In essence, gardens and farms fulfill their purpose for us, giving us comfort and nurture.  Most humans feel obliged to “take care of nature” rather than just let it be.  For example, when weeds grow in a garden, we pull them and don’t allow them near flowers that aren’t even native to the area.  Weeds naturally “win” because they know how to survive without human interference.  However, I will concede that crops tend to be supplied with more chemicals than most gardens because mass-produced crops generally “need” pesticides in order to produce the desired amount of food.   

Response to Question B

Genetic engineering, as unnatural as it is, can be viewed as a good thing. Like Pollan says, "...novelties unknown in nature before our attempts to exert control: edible potatoes (the wild ones are too bitter and toxic to eat)..." [Pg. 185] Obviously if genetic engineering had never intervened, we would have never been able to eat the potato. The Inca’s did modify potatoes, in many different ways without the use of modern technology, in order to grow them in different climates and be able to eat them. “The Inca’s developed a different spud for every environment.” [Pollan Pg. 193] This shows that technological mechanisms are not necessary for the modification of agriculture. Because the potato was modified [first non-genetically, then genetically] Ireland was able to sustain themselves agriculturally and provide for their families during a time of famine and poverty. This can be viewed in a negative light as well because in the end, the abundance of potatoes in Ireland created their demise since the over-production produced a decline in wages as well as a growth in population.
If it were not for genetically modified foods, we would not have the potato to use at our disposal or even eat it at all, as well as other fruits as vegetables. Like the NewLeaf potato Pollan talks about, there are certain agricultural advantages like it’s resistance to the Colorado potato beetle. This stops the degradation of the potato plant by this notorious beetle. This helps farmers have a bigger production amount and in turn reap a bigger profit while being able to contribute more potatoes to the community. Overall, I think genetically modified food, although unnatural is beneficial to our society as a whole. As nice as it would be to never have to modify agriculture, it is a part of our lives and, at this point, is needed to feed the world.

Genetic Engineering in Plants

Genetic engineering is when organism’s genes are directly changed, usually through molecular cloning or transformation. There are many reasons why genetic engineering in plants is a good thing. The idea of genetic engineering allows the farmer or gardener to experiment and to try new hybrids, a mixture of genes through human manipulation. Pollan writes about the potato he planted called NewLeaf, which is a potato that had been genetically engineered to create its own insecticide. The great thing about the insecticide that this potato would produce, is that it is lethal to the Colorado potato beetle, which in the past would eat and destroy a plant overnight. Not only would NewLeaf be able to fight back against the Colorado potato beetle, but it also would not need all the expensive and harmful chemicals, such as pesticides, because the potato could now protect itself. It is also believed that “current agricultural technology is unsustainable,” this is because most industrial farmers cannot grow the abundance of food without using many toxic chemicals such as fertilizers, pesticides, machinery, and fuel. All of these chemicals do not come without cost to individual’s health, pollution to the environment, and the safety of the food. With genetic engineering these toxic chemicals would be obsolete, our health and the farmer’s health would be greatly increased, there would be much less pollution to the environment, and the food that grows in these industrial farms would be much safer for consumption. There are many benefits of genetic engineering, better food quality, less harm from insects to crops, and a better healthier environment all together.

GMOs

Genetically modified organisms have entered the world and have become a way for corporations to control the food chain.  In the U.S., Congress never asked the people if they wanted genetically engineered food. Even still, it is not required for companies to label whether the food contains GMOs. There is a more recent controversy over whether genetically engineered animals can be put on the market as well. Genetically modified foods are another way that corporations control the market by placing subsidies on already low paid farmers and patenting nature.

These patents do not have many restrictions. Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer, was sued by Monsanto because a Monsanto truck carrying genetically engineered canola seeds blew off of the truck and onto his fields of canola. Monsanto went onto his private property, took samples, and told him he infringed on their patent. This isn't the only case where Monsanto has sued farmers for infringing their patent. But how can Monsanto have the right to tell Percy he infringed on their patent when the wind blew the seeds onto his field? How can they restrict mother nature? It is nature for the wind to carry the pollen and seeds of plants.

Genetically engineered crops have not been proven to produce more yields than conventional or organic crops. Farmers in India buy seeds from these corporations, but many commit suicide because the GE seeds they bought produced poor yields putting them in debt. The "Feed the World" guilt trip is a scam by the corporations. This technology has been practiced for over a decade and still world hunger has not decreased, if anything it has increased.

The only reason the United States does not require labeling is because the corporations and the FDA know that consumers will not buy their products. Also because the corporations lobby for what is favorable for them. 

I don't understand why genetically engineered food has entered the market. We don't need genetically engineered food or animals. Local, conventional/organic farmers need to be supported.

Farms versus Gardens

I do not believe that farms are apart of nature. I feel as though gardens are definitely more “natural” than a farm however it’s weird to generalize like this because in a way farms and gardens can be seen as doing the same things with similar outcomes. On page 185, Pollan talks about how farms work to “…get us what we want from nature” and I feel that gardens do this as well, but in my mind I feel that farms and gardens are very different in how they are treated.  Before reading this chapter, I read the blog questions and felt this very way about gardens versus farms; this feeling was reaffirmed when I read on page 185, “Agriculture is, by its very nature, brutally reductive, simplifying nature’s incomprehensible complexity to something humanly maneagable…” I feel that exact sentence is where you can draw the differences from a garden to farming/agriculture. A garden is something that is done for personal pleasure. We grow a garden, without being brutal or simplifying nature. People who grow a garden do it because they enjoy it. Although similar to agriculture we choose what we want to grow, I feel that nature has more variety in a garden than it does in a farm. People are working for a living on a farm as opposed to choosing to start a garden. I think the pleasure versus work aspect is what really separates a garden from a farm. 

Mother Nature vs. GE

Why can’t I splice a gene here or inject a gene there. With genetic engineering, a shortage in our food supply would be impossible, right? There are many beneficial reasons for agricultural genetic engineering, but there is still much to learn before we become reliant on this process.
Genetic engineering can resolve many problems that farmers struggle through every season. We are able to develop crops that are immune to pretty much any environmental aliment that it could possibly encounter. Due to this, we can make every crop invincible to anything preventing it from thriving. How could this possibly purpose any danger towards the human race? It sounds like this could be the cure to world hunger. However, you must consider what would happen if every plant was completely dominant in its environment. In “The Botany of Desire,” Pollan expresses his uncertainty about genetic engineering. He states, “…the reliability or safety of one genetically modified plant doesn’t necessarily guarantee the reliability of safety of the next” (Pollan, 209). If one crop had close to no competition, how would this affect other natural species in the same environment?
I think that we would see other plant species conquered and becoming extinct, disrupting the entire food web. The natural cycle of life would be destroyed and put into our hands to control. Also, evolution would be put in a state of complete chaos. Nothing would be natural and biodiversity would be humanly engineered. I believe that we are in no ways ready to take on such a role of playing god.

New and Improved

Genetic engineering has and will continue to provide new ways to control some of the harmful effects the environment can have on plants humans depend on. The tedious work of genetically engineering plants in the laboratory has shown to allow a more simplified gardening process out in the field. Genetically altered plants have shown the ability to withstand the harmful effects of bugs and diseases without the need for farmers to apply herbicides and pesticides to their crops. “Genetic engineering promises to replace expensive and toxic chemicals with expensive but apparently benign genetic information: crops that, like my NewLeafs, can protect themselves from insects and diseases without the help of pesticides” (Pollan 191). Although genetic engineering in plants is expensive, the benefits of avoiding the toxic chemicals, which would otherwise be required to protect the crops, far outweigh the cost. Because the potato can now protect itself with a gene that is not harmful to the potato eater, we do not have to apply insecticides and worry of their detrimental effects both to the eater as well as the potential runoff into nearby streams which may later prove dangerous to our water supply and other animals.
Pollan discusses how the Inca would plant a wide variety of potatoes within one garden. Although this variety may have been due to the Incas love to experiment, they were able to observe the conditions in which certain potatoes grow and thrive. “The Andean potato farm represented an intricate ordering of nature that… can withstand virtually anything nature is apt to throw at it” (Pollan 193). In this sense, it is the variety of the Incan farm that promised the people, no matter what the weather or environment, would yield edible results. In the variety of potatoes, the Incan people were able to avoid any threat of famine. Genetic engineering is the modern solution to overcoming the uncertainties nature may bring. Instead of planting a variety of plants and hoping that at least some will survive, we can genetically alter plants and allow the strongest to grow. We can now be much more confident that they will grow, for we are protecting them against some of the uncertainties of nature. The more we learn about and practice genetic engineering, the more effective and beneficial the process will become.

The Pros of Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering has made a colossal impact on the way we live.  If not for genetic engineering mass production of crops such as corn, wheat, soybean and rice would be an increasingly difficult task.  Genetic engineering allows farmers to grow crops quicker and in more mass by adding certain DNA strands which give crops immunity from certain pests.  One could look at this as our very own version of Darwin’s Survival of the Fittest, with a bit of human implication.  Genetically engineered crops are not good for only mass-producing products such as corn or wheat; we can also use genetic engineering to make crops healthier.  According to Pollan, potatoes were not originally edible.  The wild potato was too toxic for human consumption.  However, by planting the seed of an offspring he was able to discover an edible potato.  Another example of where genetic engineering has made a crop healthier is in Asia.  Asia has been farming rice for over a century; a common problem has been that because this crop is one of the few that Asians can farm they are unable to get other key vitamins in order to sustain their health such as vitamin A.  Vitamin A deficiency is common throughout the undeveloped parts of Asia.  With genetic engineering scientists were able to add vitamin A to a rice crop.  By genetically engineering crops farmers are able to grow mass quantities of crops without having to worry about pests destroying valuable crops.  Farmers can also genetically engineer crops to be capable of growing in environments and soil which organic crops would not be able to survive.

The Old Farm Ways

In the world today, I would say that gardens are more part of nature than farms. Gardens are commonly used for enjoyment. The flowers, fruit and vegetables are planted, and then left to grow with very little control from the owner. Farms are used to grow crops and rear animals under the control of a manager. Many farms, especially today, are being manipulated. The difference Pollan saw in the genetically altered potato farm and the organic farm is just one example. If you look at the food industry you can tell a difference between chemically enhanced meat and free-range meat. The fact that a farm has an owner to invade on the plants and animals life proves that it is no longer just nature but humanly controlled. "Agriculture is, by its very nature, brutally reductive, simplifying nature's incomprehensible complexity to something humanly manageable; it begin, after all, with the simple act of banishing all but a tiny handful of chosen species"(Pollan 185).  The key word in this quote is “humanly manageable.” Humans, not all, have taken the nature out of farms and turned it into a man made experiment. The origin of farms was a way for humans to create a society and not live like savages (i.e. animals dietary ways.) It has now turned away from natures hand and become a science experiment. If farms were to go back to being about the plants and not the money, I believe that farms could join nature once again.