Useful Poo...No Thanks

In other parts of the world, biosolids (human waste) from sewage treatment plants are treated and used as sustainable agricultural fertilizer. Research the pros and cons of this method and take a stand as to whether this can be a realistic alternative to our current agricultural practices. Who are the potential stakeholders in this issue? Are we influenced by the Western view of human waste as an unsanitary and disgusting nuisance?

First thought is, like any other person reading this topic: EW. Right off the bat, I'm sure you can guess that no, I don't think this is a realistic alternative to our current practices. Are we influenced by the Western view of human waste as an unsanitary and disgusting nuisance? Sure we are, at least I'm pretty sure I am. Regardless of whether or not there's the influence of Western views, the thought of using another person's "business" to grow my food is gag-worthy in itself. But before I go off, let's weigh the pros and cons of this.

Pros


Creates jobs
- Like anything else that may introduce a new sort of industry to the community, it is basically a call for job opportunities.

It's cost effective
- Meaning, you're basically producing the product. In a sense, it's pretty much free, or close to it.

It's recyclable
- Although it irks me think about, it's true that it is indeed a recyclable product. In fact, it's so easy to reproduce anyway, so landfills won't be as much of an issue if this were the alternative used to regular fertilizer.

Improves crop production
- It proves to be as effective as regular fertilizer (as much as I don't like to think about it). It improves the soil quality as well as replenish it, as a fertilizer should.

Enriching forestland
- As random as this is, it's actually beneficial to forests. There are many species of trees that benefit well from the use of biosolids.

Cons


Potential health hazard
- The word "potential" shouldn't even be there, but because it's not 100% true, it should be put there. Nonetheless, the fact that it proves to be a health hazard should be enough to put you on edge, even if just a little bit. There are only so many ways you can "reduce, re-use, and recycle" but when you have to draw the line, you have to do it.

Effects irreversible
- Basically, if it screws you over, you're pretty much screwed for life.

May contain hazardous chemicals
- Okay, so one proposes that you clean the waste and filter it and what not so that it can be deemed at least usable in the field. This sounds like a chemical formula plus more waste that can easily be just as toxic.

Decreases property value
- To be honest, would you buy anything if you were informed that biosolids were used in said area? Come on, realistically, there is no way a person would consider shelling out money for it.

I suppose it's safe to say that there it's an equal fight, and the pros and cons seemed somewhat balanced. You can look at it as a practical solution, or see it as I see it - just plain nasty.

Sources: 1 2 3

Medical Machines...and Stuff

Evaluate the importance of various technologies, including Canadian contributions, to our understanding of internal body systems (digestive, circulatory or respiratory)

We've come a long way in terms of health advances. People have come to develop many new technologies benefit people as a whole. There have been many technological advances in the world today and even notably Canadian contributions have joined the bandwagon. With each passing year, technology in general can only get more complex as well as just plain awesome. But to be a little more specific, the focus on this wonderful blog will be the medical technologies that have since been developed and are being continuously improved.

Have you ever took the time to consider how the (now) considered simplest of technologies came to exist? How about the X-Ray? Sure, it's cool because it's basically showing you what you look like on the inside - literally, but what if it wasn't invented? I feel that this was definitely a great contribution to the medical advances of our time.



From this, scientists and doctors alike have come up with what is known as the Computerized Axial Tomography or better known as the CAT Scan. What the CAT scan does is take multiple x-rays of a particular place of the body and manipulate it so that you can see cross-sectional views and even produce a 3-dimensional image.



There was also the epidemic that was once diabetes. It had once taken the lives of countless of people and doctors were astounded as to how this epidemic could be fix. And along comes a smarty pants named Fredrick Banting, a Canadian doctor. He was thoroughly engaged in the disease and sought to find a solution to the problem.

Through a long thought process and lots of research, Banting was able to come up with Insulin.


Insulin is a hormone injected into the body and it regulates the fat and carbohydrates in the body. If Banting hadn't thought of this solution, then the world would have to deal with thousands upon thousands of starving people, all on strict diets in order not to intake extra fat and carbs.

All in all, there have been many new technological advances in the medical field that we sometimes overlook, as we do live in a technologically advanced age. These new advances are constantly changing and it's amazing how we are able to make and manipulate these machines to do what is needed for the better of the population.

Sources: 1 2 3 4

Feeding a Growing Population vs Conserving Biodiversity

Do the benefits of relying on a few highly productive livestock breeds and crop varieties outweigh the risks of reducing genetic diversity by allowing less productive breeds to become extinct?

- What do the terms "industrial agriculture" and "sustainable agriculture" might mean?
- Are you familiar with any breeds of livestock or varieties of crops grown to produce the food you eat?
- Can the agricultural industry keep up with the rapid growth of the global human population?

To answer the main question, I don't think that reducing the genetic diversity for the sake of relying on the more productive breeds and crops. There may come a day when these "more productive" livestock and crops dramatically decline, and if we don't have a variety of other crops or livestock to rely on, then our sources of food will automatically become very limited. Industrial agriculture and sustainable agriculture both play a part in this.

Industrial agriculture is a (1)modernized form of farming which involves the production of livestock, poultry, fish, and crops. This kind of farming is essential to global trades, for political purposes, as well as economic purposes. The final, ready-to-sell products of this kind of farming is found in your local supermarket. What does this have to do with genetic diversity? In industrial farming, (2)there is only one way to do it and there are only a number of crops and livestock that can follow this uniform management, therefore limiting the amount of genetic diversity in both crops and livestock. In such an environment, bugs and other insects that thrive on certain crops find it easier to feed off of the crops grown, and sometimes even the livestock and what not. This leads to the excessive use of pesticides and other chemicals meant to keep them away. Of course, the words "chemical" and "pesticide" don't sound too good when placed beside the word "food." Health concerns are always an issue with industrial farming, and because there are only a few crops and livestock that can be bred on an industrial farm, it makes you question how edible your food really is. To put it simply, industrialized food is just about as natural as Nicki Minaj's booty. But that's another story altogether.

Now this brings me to the next kind of agriculture: sustainable agriculture. What is it?

"[...]the term sustainable agriculture means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term:

- satisfy human food and fiber needs
- enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends
- make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls
- sustain the economic viability of farm operations
- enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole." (National Agriculture Library)

Sustainable agriculture is purely for ecological needs, serving the purpose to feed the people of the world. It makes use of all crops and livestock, meaning there is much more genetic diversity on a sustainable agricultural farm rather than the industrial. This practice involves the natural growth of crops, making them organic products. Chemicals are not used in the process of farming, therefore the health concerns are not as high. Instead, (3)soil steaming, a type of soil treatment, is used as an ecological alternative to chemicals. Not only does it kill pests and insects that threaten the crop, but it also increases soil health.

Of course, it's easy to see why genetic diversity would benefit more than less genetic diversity through the different kinds of agriculture. With this, a bigger question remains, and that is whether or not the agricultural industry as a whole will be able to keep up with the fast growth of the global population. On a sad note, I hate to admit that the possibility of sustainable agriculture keeping up with the growing population is definitely not on par, just because of how long it takes to be able to grow the crop and breed the livestock. I suppose in this aspect, it is easy to see why industrial agriculture would hold more favourable.

However, I stand my ground when I say that more genetic diversity is better than less genetic diversity. Although the rapid growth of the human population would call for more industrialized products, I find that because there is much more diversity and variety in the sustainable products, it can be considered just as fast-growing as the industrialized.

Sources: 1 2 3 4
Images: 1 2

Designer Babies?

"Designer babies" is the term being used by the media to describe the future of modifying or selecting our children's genes for desirable characteristics (medical and cosmetic). Are things getting out of hand with our research into genetic processes? In this blog investigate social and ethical implications of this research and technologies that have been developed from it.

It is a part of human nature that we meddle with every little thing there is to meddle with. We try to change what we can to make ourselves and everyone else happier. We use science selfishly for our own benefits, ranging from things like cosmetic surgery, tummy tucks and the like. It goes against the days when major breakthroughs involved the discovery of electricity, the laws of gravity, and even the fact that the world revolved around the sun. Nowadays, we have even more impressive things to be proud of (e.g. cloning) but the purpose of these breakthroughs were to change what we already have. People never seem to be satisfied with what they are given and focus on how to change that. And now we have the concept of "designer babies" in which fetuses are genetically modified to suit the parents' desire.

This can be viewed in both an impressive and crude way. The fact that scientists are now able to genetically modify a fetus' genetic make up is absolutely mind blowing to say the least. The process involves a combination of in vitro fertilization and genetic engineering. It all starts with an embryo created by in vitro fertilization and then the genetic engineers then tweak and modify the embryo's genetic make up and DNA before inserting it inside the Mother's womb. The idea of creating your baby's genetic characteristics is something of the future and it is surprising that we have advanced so far as to do such a thing in present time.

However, the practice is still crude and unethical. I personally do not like the idea of cosmetic surgery at all, and the idea of modifying a baby's DNA irks me in all honesty. As much as I'd love for my child to look like the spawn of Emma Watson and Scarlett Johansson, there is no way I'd genetically modify my child's DNA. Those who have developed such a science have been under scrutiny for it because it falls under the same category as abortion. Those who are pro-life are most likely to go against such a practice and indeed that is what's happened.

It is more commonly religious groups that look at this scientific discovery as absurdity. The fact that God is the one who created us brings up the fact that we should be happy with what we are given and to alter it is a sign of vanity. However, the reasoning behind the creation of "designer babies" isn't totally twisted. The original purpose of this was to be able to remove or change any genetic make up that may cause genetic deficiencies when the baby has developed. Human beings normally start off with good intentions, until different ideas are proposed, leading to these intentions to become lost along the way.



Through the discovery of genetic modification, the human race has taken yet another step forward in the world of science, but a step backward in ethics. What I've picked up from this is that we are capable of doing so much to help humanity, introducing new ways to prevent any genetic-spurned diseases by means of IVF or genetic engineering. But we still have to learn how to keep from going further than necessary with this kind of thing. Good intentions can easily waste away especially when one is blinded by success.

Sources: 1 2 3

Images: 1 2

Blog Comments: Dyrosha Ithayaneesan & Kim Abanador