Societal needs have lead to technological advancements leading to effects on our health

In the past 25 years Canada has witnessed a dramatic increase in obesity rates. What caused obesity rates to increase at such alarming rates? Numerous factors contributed to the increase of obesity rates, specifically technological advances. 

Inactivity one of the reasons for obesity has become a worldwide practice because of technology. In the past people became entertained through physical activities because technology at the time was premature. As time progressed video games started to develop. Soon video games became a daily routine for people of all ages, it replaced physical games such as soccer, basketball, etc. The same could be said for television, we’re at the point where televisions are affordable to any class family. The technological advances of video games and televisions have created an addictive practice that harms are own health. 

Poor eating habits, over the years fast food has become so readily available. Every other block of a developed area is bound to have at least one fast food restaurant including Mcdonalds, Wendys, Pizza Pizza, etc. Not only has fast food become more readily available but it has also become more convenient through drive-thru’s and more advanced appliances that make our food’s in minutes. 

 

As time progresses it is surprising how more people want the perfect appearance; 6-pack abs, bigger arms, but want to achieve such things without the traditional methods of exercise. People want the easy way out, they eat all these fast foods, play all these video games and expect a healthy appearance. This flaw in society has given businesses an opportunity to take our money. Weight-loss pills, and liposuction have become all to common in advertisements.  Surprisingly people fall for these false advertisements, expecting positive results when they are actually harming their internals. 

So far I have only been pointing out the negatives of technology, but a glimmer of hope can be seen in some industries. An example is Nintendo and their invention of the Wii, incorporating physical activities with video games. Other big name industries soon followed in Nintendo’s food steps including Microsoft with their Xbox Kinect and Sony with their Playstation Move. 

Although advancements in technology have been proven to lead to poor lifestyles, it is evident that some companies are making an attempt to incorporate goodness into bad lifestyles.

Comments
1. Justin Lasala
I find it quite astonishing how mankind has developed over the past years. In the last century, scientific advancements has made it possible to do things that were previously thought impossible. I can't even imagine what's next.

2. Jerwin Lalata
I don't know if it's a good thing that companies are taking advantage of the wants of society in terms of a healthier lifestyle, but I have a mixed opinion towards these "energy drink" they're coming up with. Do these drinks really do us any good? They may prove to be good in the short term but how about the long term? It seems too good to be true to have such benefits without any sort of loss. 

Sources

www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/life-vie/obes-eng.php
www.wiifit.com/training/
www.nintendo.com/games/detail/1OTtO06SP7M52gi5m8pD6CnahbW8CzxE

www.xbox.com/en-ca/kinect

Human waste, a realistic agricultural alternative?

When someone first hears the word, "Human Waste" or for more of a scientific word "Bio solids," the first thing that comes to mind is probably "Pooh" or "Feces." Now when you mix that word with agriculture, the first the thing that would probably come to mind is "What the?!" "Food grown in pooh?!." Now this is not entirely true because the human waste goes through a lot of changes as it goes through sewage treatment plants before it is used a agricultural fertilizers. 

Where do these bio solids really come from? Bio solids are actually the left over solid waste after waste-water treatment process, which takes the water out of our waste and recycles it into lakes, after the removal of harmful substances of course. After the treatment of the bio solids it is now ready to be used in agriculture as a fertilizer, put into our landfills, or incinerated.

Why use bio solids as a fertilizer? Bio solids contain important plant nutrients including nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, copper and zinc, all of which are essential for healthy plant growth.

As we live in a developed, westernised nation, we tend to not give second thought to choices made, we tend to ignore other possibilities that will very much help society as a whole. I feel that when individuals hear the words, human waste and agriculture together, they will probably be against it, without second thought, without realising the benefits of so.
 
I feel that we should put our selfishness aside, our waste is much better used in our agriculture rather than in incinerators or landfills that without doubt, do harm to our environment.



Resources
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Comments
Roma
Bea

Is It Really Worth it? Feeding a Growing Population vs Conserving Biodiversity

Based on opinion I feel that, sure one may be able to go on and on with the benefits of Industrial Agriculture,but these benefits do not hide the harsh consequences that follow, which may not be significant now, but in the future problems may arise which may or may not be irreversible. Therefore I strongly am against Industrial Agriculture, and am for, the "less profitable" Sustainable Agriculture. Now I remind you that I am only a consumer that relies on my parent's to put food on the table.

Now just in case your not informed, basically, Industrial Agriculture is good for company profits, bad for humans and the environment while Sustainable Agriculture is bad for company profits, good for humans and the environment.

To be specific, Industrial Agriculture uses artificial selection, fertilizers, pesticides and other methods to create larger, and fresher products at the cost of putting all sorts of chemicals into it. Not only are we affected by these chemicals, but so is the environment. Industrial Agriculture uses fertilizers filled with nitrogen, nitrogen may be good for plants however through such a large overdose, it causes soil acidification. Industrial Agriculture also requires a large quantity of water, so much that it is almost wasted and nearby communities often have water shortages. Companies which use such methods simply do not invest in ways to stop or reduce negative effects on the environment.

While Sustainable Agriculture uses more natural methods to create products at the cost of a little more resources. Companies that use this method tend to invest in ways to reduce water usage and reduce amount of pollutants. However the cost of an eco-friendly method means that companies receive less profits and the consumer will generally end up paying more for such products.

With a little research I've found out that a lot of the produce we eat in our daily lives has gone through some form of artificial selection. That humans have been intentionally breeding livestock such as pigs and cows with desired characteristics through artificial selection, characteristics that allow these animals to grow faster and to a much larger mass in a less amount of time.

Now is artificial selection right? I feel that its not, I believe that changing a characteristic of an animal or plant for our own benefit is morally wrong. These changes may benefit us, but I highly doubt its benefiting these animals, and its only a matter of time until something negative and irreversible happens.

Can agricultural industries keep up? Yes industries can keep up and this issue cannot be used as an excuse for Industrial agricultural industries to keep on destroying our environment for the demand of products. In only Toronto, let alone the rest of the world, an estimate 17.5m kilograms of food is thrown out each month! and 61% of this waste could have been kept and eaten at another time. A recent survey in the U.K suggests that families throw out 1/3 of their food purchases.

Reference 1
Reference 2
Reference 3
Reference 4

Comment - Cris Iconaru
Comment - Puji Wibowo

Designer Babies: Should our babies be tampered with?

By default, one might assume that a "Designer Baby" refers to designer baby clothing, or maybe even a baby born into a high status family. However the "Designer Baby" I am referring to is the non-medical term for genetically modified babies.



By genetically modified, I mean babies which had their genetic make up changed prior to birth. This means a family can pick and choose how certain characteristics of their baby will turn out, such as hair colour, eye colour and gender. Now this is achieved through a process of PGD and IVF. PGD refers to Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, which are procedures performed on embryos prior to implantation and IVF refers to In Vitro Fertilisation which is the process of fertilizing egg cells by sperm outside of the body. Not only appearance can be changed through this process, but also the health of the baby can be modified. Faulty embryos containing disorders such as Huntington's Chorea and Cystic Fibrosis can be screened out, and only those not containing to faulty gene will be placed in the mothers' womb through the process of PGD.



Now some of you may be thinking that such a procedure is morally wrong. However if you look at it as a family wanting to have a healthy baby, wouldn't you want to avoid disorders which could affect yourself and everyone around you? I am sure that deep down inside, people of the present with disorders since birth, would rather be "normal" than not. Nevertheless, if such a technology was used for cosmetic purposes, then my thoughts would be reversed, otherwise society would all look like the media's portrayal of the "perfect" appearance.



All in all, research and technology has made huge advances in the past years, at an unimaginable rate that makes us wonder "is there a limit?" It may not seem significant now but in areas such as genetics, it is only a matter of time before we can do more than just change hair colour or eye colour. It is almost certain that individuals will abuse this technology and use it for inhumane uses, such as war.



At the end of the day, I think that despite the pros of modifying ones genes, that human genetics should never be tampered with.







Sources

• http://www.bionetonline.org/english/content/db_intro.htm
• http://www.impactlab.net/2008/05/14/on-the-path-to-creating-designer-babies/
• http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html
• http://nwso.net/2009/03/10/doctor-makes-designer-babies-would-god-be-happy/
• http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/2009/02/17/fertility-clinic-offers-designer-babies.aspx

Comments

• Jeefchan
  http://jeefchan.blogspot.com/2010/12/medical-marvel-cosmetic-controversy.html?showComment=1299256227078#c5036741607599526064
• Eryn
  http://erynkris.blogspot.com/2011/02/designer-babies.html#comment-form

Greenpeace Activists Stop Massive Oil Drilling Ship

September 21, 2010
Two Greenpeace activists, Anais and Viktor climbed the anchor of Stena Carron, a 228m long drill ship. Then suspended themselves in a tent chained onto the anchor, thus preventing the Stena Carron from moving.



The ship belonged to oil giant Chevron and was to sail 200 km north of Shetland Islands and drill a 500m well into an area called the Atlantic Frontier, known for being a ecologically sensitive area.



The two Greenpeace activists, had just returned from an expedition in the Arctic where they halted a deep water drilling rig operated by Edinburgh-based Cairn Energy.

September 24, 2010
Oil Giant Chevron turned to court order to stop the Greenpeace protest. The company a court order forcing Greenpeace activists to get off, or faced huge fines or custodial sentences. Chevron claims that they have to move the ship because they cant guarantee the safety of the activists, but drilling ships are built to not move even in the toughest situations.

Greenpeace activist, Leila Deen said:
“Chevron is using a legal hammer to end a peaceful protest. Our pod occupation by expert climbers is entirely safe, but Chevron wants to send this ship to sea to drill a dangerous deep water well off the Scottish coast and that’s why they’ve gone to court. This is all about money for them, regardless of the dangers to the Scottish coastline and the global climate. Our climbers might be forced down, but we’ll continue to bear witness to this reckless drilling operation. We have to go beyond oil and invest in clean energy technologies that won’t pollute our seas and overheat our fragile climate.”


“There is a huge contradiction at heart of what Chevron’s saying. They claim they need us off their anchor chain because they can’t guarantee this ship can hold its position in rough seas, but they want to use the same ship to drill for oil in even rougher seas, where a deviation of a few metres in their position risks disaster. In reality our protest was always entirely safe, while deepwater drilling is reckless and dangerous.”

September 28, 2010
Despite being forced off the anchor of Chevron's drilling ship due to legality, Greenpeace activists continued to get their message across as activists took turns swimming in a wet suit below the bow of the ship.



For more than 46 hours Greenpeace activists put their bodies on the line as they put on the thickest wet suit gear and plunged into the freezing cold waters and pushed around by waves that threw them up and down more than 5m.

"We must, must go beyond oil. So every time I am heaved back out of the water, four more hours under my life-belt, and back to the security of the Esperanza, I am rolled from the boat into the Wet Room, to be unpeeled from my suit and I am asked - "Up for another shift in 8 hours?" I look to my buddy Victor and without hesitation we both say "Yup. Bring it on.""


References:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/chevron-shetland-stopped210910/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Oil-giant-gets-legal-hammer-to-stop-Greenpeace-protest/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/swimming-against-the-tide-the-things-people-d/blog/26518


Comments:
Nicole's bio blog

Marc's bio blog