Just Add Water new media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8UGzsOYJ2M

Animalcules

I think Smith is so satisfied with these microscopic animals because he is the type of person who enjoys the little things. Everyone nowadays seems to be concerned about the bigger things that are happening like the article we read about quantum physics or the universe or the stars and galaxies. The infinite possibilities of life on other planets besides our own. Smith takes a smaller view on life. There is more in that little pickle jar than there is in space, plus, it's a lot easier to see.

Smith takes these small animalcules and serves them up on a life-sized platter. He takes microscopic amoebas and paramecium and turns them into real-life, macroscopic animals. The paramecium feeding on bacteria become grazing cows in a pasture and also somehow hunters in the African savanna running around w/ poison spears (idk where that comparison came from). The amoebas become oozing lava. To Smith, these simple forms of life are actually very complex. The way they feed, move, and reproduce are just as complicated as what we consider a normal-sized animal. Just because they are small, doesn't mean they are irrelivant.

"Self-inflicted instinction" ≠ Self-inflicted extinction

Most of Phelan's article is dedicated to the explanation of natural selection and the constant evolution of humans. It is not until the very end where he gives us a clue about his feelings of anguish. Bruce Lahn believes our intelligence is continuously building up and building up with the natural selection process eventually to the point where we can exceed it. We can actually overcome natural selection with the technology that gives us the power of genetic manipulation and gene manufacturing. Phelan introduces his worries when he brings in Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich believes this growing intelligence is a cost not a benefit (in the words of John Broome). A number of times in the past century humans have had close encounters with extinction and have only been saved by "dumb luck." Ehrlich apparently doesn't give a shit about our speedy evolution rate because he believes we're just going to all die out in the next five generations. How optimistic.
I agree with Ehrlich's statement but not to the extent of the sad conclusion he has for the human race. I do think however, that we are moving too fast for evolution to keep up. The constant global temperature is changing which is causing a whole bunch of other things to change. This is all happening so fast that it is impossible for even one trait to adapt to the changes (of course climate change had to be mentioned at some point in this article). I think Phelan's fears are very legitimate. We have evolved so much that we have overcome evolution and now it can't keep up.

Blogging

Personally I don't really mind blogging. I feel like in everyone's posts they say how annoying it is and how much they hate it. I think blogging as a form of homework is a great idea. All these other comp teachers are handing out 20-30 page readings and a paper a week. Would you rather have that or blogging honestly? I much rather blog. Anyone is gunna complain about homework but when you look at the bigger picture, we have it pretty good. All we have to do is blog every night about about what we read. Write down our ideas. We don't even have to write properly I don't have to capitalize or spell right or use punctuation. It's better than writing a formal paper and having to hand it in and have it count as a quiz grade. How much better can it get right now? No homework would be nice but that's not exactly an option. I also like blogging because other people's posts usually help me out when I'm confused about what we're supposed to be writing. All I have to do is read someone's blog and I'll get a better idea of what I'm supposed to be writing about. Anyway those are my thoughts for the most part.

Broome

Global warming has been turned into climate change and climate change has now been turned into ethics. Broome has mad climate change into an ethical matter. He basically says people know what they should be doing about climate change but they do the opposite regardless. People are selfish and only do what benefits them and not others or the environment. Broome really gets into economics when he brings in discount rates. He uses discount rates to support another claim he makes. People care more about the present than the future. In other words, the present is discounted more than the future (brings me back to economics class =/). Another reason for the higher discount rate for the present is because of the costs involved in fixing climate change. People will have to give up all sorts of luxuries to help save the planet and because they only care about what is going on in the present, this will most likely not happen.
Broome continues the battle of ethics with prioritariainism vs. utilitarianism. Both these approaches have different discount rates for the future which makes their ethical views completely different. Broome's example for this matter is the question hes poses about the death of a 10-year old child. He asks does it matter more if a child dies now or in the future? Or does it not matter? I think Stern's prioritarianism approach works best. We should start doing things now to help our future because the benefits outweigh the costs of what we have to give up.

Just Add Water stuff

Observations
- "Thanks for coming, would you like a receipt with that? Don't forget to take a mint!"
- guy in toll booth
- old car
- Trona
- mountains, California
- everything is dry
- Selma is scary
- pet turtle
- Ray is awkward
- Rite-valu
- gross twinkie recipe
- grandma is in a coma

Need to Know
What was in the tin container Ray was looking at in the car?
Why is it ok for Ray to take his son to Betsy's?
Is the lemon mirangue really that good?
How does Dirk run the whole town? Where are the police?
Is Ray's neighbor glued to his lawn chair or is he actually able get up?
Did Nora dress up for Ray because she knows something happened with him and Charlene?
Is Uncle Mark's ability to get Charlene out of the house symbolic for anything?

Big Foot

I thought Specter's idea about sky miles was pretty interesting. It's amazing how big of an impact the travel distance of the food products we consume has our carbon footprint. Specter's idea to cut down on "food miles" would dtrastically reduce people's carbon footprint. He suggests buying local foods instead of buying the same products that are being shipped from thousands of miles away. "Each glass of orange juice, for exmaple, contains the equivalent of two glasses of petrol once the transport costs are included." John Elkngton's claim has an ominous yet hopeful prediction. He believes that in order for things to get better, things first have to get worse. What he means by this is that many companies that depend on fossil fuels will most likely disappear. THings like that need to change before moving into a more environmentally friendly era. Once these changes disappear, or "destruct" we will be on our way to a more earth friendly life.
I think everyone on earth, me included, is responsible for global warming. Everyone contributes whether they like it or not. My family for example has 4 cars and a wood burning stove that we use for heat... which most likely causes a huge carbon footprint. Even though there are all different sized carbon footprints, everyone still has one. Even cows contribute to global warming because of the methane in their farts =). I also think that since everyone is contributing to this world-wide problem, people can start contributing to stopping the problem. THere are so many small things you can do to lower your carbon foot print. Properly insluating doors and windows, buying more fuel efficient cars, and buying food produced locally are all ways people can lower their carbon footprints.

CALCULATE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT
--> Carbon Footpring Calculator!! <--