Amazon Rainforest



I am just boggled by the incredible amount of biodiversity in the rainforest. "A single pond in Brazil can sustain a greater variety of fish than is found in all of Europe's rivers" (Raintree Nutrition, Inc.). Europe, a small continent, has less biodiversity as far as fish are concerned than Brazil, a single country. Even more impressive is that more than "20 percent of the world oxygen" is made in the Amazon Rainforest (Raintree). More than 20% comes from just the Amazon Rainforest, not all the rainforest in the world just the Amazon Rainforest. That alone should pique the interest of anyone who likes breathing. However, according to Raintree Nutrition, Inc. (link here: http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm ) the rainforestes are disappearing at alarming rates. 



"The red areas show where the Asner-led team found
selective logging disturbance in Brazil" -Science Daily



Rainforests loss "more than 200,000 acres... every day" and the Amazon Rainforest is predicted to disappearing entirely in our lifetimes if nothing is changes. While there are some efforts made toward sustainable selective logging practices, unregulated selective harvesting of hardwoods is and has been incredibly damaging to the Amazon Rainforest. A research team lead by Carnegie scientist Gregory Asner has found that "every year unregulated selective logging of mahogany and other hardwoods destroys an area of pristine rainforest big enough to cover the state of Connecticut" (ScienceDailyLLC). Clearly, something more has to be done. The rainforests are destroyed for economic reasons, so why not protect them for economic reasons. Raintree mentions that "if medicinal plants, fruits, nuts, rubber, chocolate, and other renewable and sustainable resources are harvested, the land will yield the landowner $2,400 per acre" and can then be pasted on to support the next generation. By placing an emphasis on the value of the rainforests being renewable, slash-and-burn operations could be pushed out by more lucrative sustainable harvesting methods. This will not happen over night, and it will not happen in a world that prizes tropical hardwoods for coffins; however, it is a possibility that given the right incentive governments, companies, and citizens could save the rainforests. 


Link for Science Daily article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051023123348.htm



Evidence supporting evolution.



When people say “evolution is just a theory” what they mean is that evolution is one possible explanation for how life developed on this planet. The “just a” is often meant to trivialize the idea of evolution. However, a theory is more than a possible explanation or guess. It is a statement backed by large amount of data supporting the claim. Evidence in favor of evolution includes Charles Darwin’s observation of diverse species on the Galapagos Islands.

 

Just because it was said,
does not means it was heard.

The reason I believe people take offense is that evolution is at its core a very secular idea. Traditional religions, Catholicism in particular, are not the most flexible or open to revision. These religions generally believe in creationism, or have some sort of epic story explaining the creation of the world. This does not leave a whole lot of room for “natural selection” or “adaption”. Trying to reconcile the two possible explanations for the beginnings of life on this planet that requires a level of thought most people are not interested in bothering with. Then there is the feeling in both the scientific community and the religious community that each party is attacking the other. This suspicion leads to an ungodly high talking to listening ratio by both parties. (Think of it as yelling so loudly that the other person cannot be heard.) Which, that's right, gets nobody anywhere. It only contributes to the distrust of scientists who are religious, and church-goers that think scientifically. 

Firm religious beliefs and good grasp of evolution are not incompatible or exclusive of each other. If one believes in a higher being, then why not consider that if they viewed time as we do they would not be much of a higher being. So then, if a day is not a day to a higher power, then how about a day being a millennium, or millions of years even. If that is the case evolution would make not necessarily be out of context, since humans generally acknowledge the advancement and shift in the human race why not allow for it elsewhere. If someone believed in a higher power that controls all and cannot be defied, then surely that being must have made allowances for evolution. Or if one should tend towards Deism none of this really matters, because the higher power made the world and saw that it was good, and then promptly left.  In short, evolution does not contradict or support religious beliefs as an obviously secular notion it tried very hard to steer clear of all that commotion. It did not, but evolution was never meant as an alternative belief system. It was meant as just a scientific explanation back by a preponderance of scientific evidence. Those that attempt to “believe” evolution, or legislate on “creationism” fail to understand that this debate has never been about the evidence supporting or undermining evolution. It has always at its core been an argument about how far religious beliefs and secular thought extends into both private and public life. The argument about evolution is a symptom, of an insistence on science and religion maintaining exclusive spheres and never interacting. If science and religion were to acknowledge that each system has a different, but not necessarily wrong view point, then all of this would vanish. Then neither community would feel threatened by the other. People would stop asking nosy questions about people beliefs or thoughts that have nothing to do with passing a science class, presenting evidence in a scientific journal, or showing up to early morning Mass.