# data[].attributes.body
On the final day of the course as I was watching the Pale Blue Dot video, I looked out my window and started thinking about the natural landscape I live in and what I share it with. Coincidentally the sun was setting perfectly and a family of Javelina's were coming out for dinner. Our pale blue dot is like a marble of organisms thriving off of each other. It is a wonder as to how we have created and live in such an amazing planet... We Need to protect its beauty!

# data[].attributes.body
This course taught me a lot about conservation - one thing being the definition of it. I saw real world examples and the history of how humans expanded the role of natural resources and created terms ideas about how to better protect them through conservation, preservation, and environmentalism. Many movements have taken place over the past 200 years creating change for farmers, city-dwellers, animals, and all ecosystems to better regulate how we develop our landscapes for future generations.

# data[].attributes.body
Carl Sagan was an astronaut and communicates very well about astronomy and natural resources. Like E.O Wilson, Sagan has a very optimistic view on respecting our planet because it is home for us.

# data[].attributes.body
E.O. Wilson is an American Biologist and optimist! He is optimistic about saving the worlds ecosystems because he believes that we are the key in connecting our human-bond back with nature. I found some cool TED Talk videos with him sharing more of his ideas!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Members of the TED community sure were busy this week. Below, some highlights: Legendary biologist E.O. Wilson has come out with a bold idea: that we set aside half of Planet Earth for wildlife. If we don't, he warns, he sees us hurtling toward a "biological holocaust" that could send us the way of the [...]

Continue reading

There's a time and a place for the big picture; there's a time and a place for the tiny one. This week, watch the playlist "The world of tiny things," all about viewing the unseen and looking at the world on a very small scale. In this playlist, E.O. Wilson makes a plea for insects [...]

Continue reading

When biologist E.O. Wilson won the TED Prize in 2007, he wished that we all "work together to help create the key tool that we need to inspire preservation of Earth's biodiversity." With that, the Encyclopedia of Life began the outrageous task of cataloguing all of the Earth's known species. Cynthia Parr spoke at TED2012 to give updates on [...]

Continue reading

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Members of the TED community sure were busy this week. Below, some highlights: Legendary biologist E.O. Wilson has come out with a bold idea: that we set aside half of Planet Earth for wildlife. If we don't, he warns, he sees us hurtling toward a "biological holocaust" that could send us the way of the [...]

# data[].attributes.body
Citizen Science is a olunteer based program deigned to let citizens participate in collecting data of a wildlife species or gaze at stars. We, for example, can monitor frogs and collect data to submit to scientists to help them better understand a species withing a vast landscape.

# data[].attributes.body
I like this website from the National Wildlife Federation because it breaks down biodiversity into many aspects.

Fun Fact: there are between 3 - 30 million species on Earth and we have only discovered 1.7 million of them!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wildlife Guide | National Wildlife Federation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about our nation's wildlife, the threats they face, and the conservation efforts that can help.

# data[].attributes.body
The process of making an area more urban and changing the environment for consumption of food, energy, water, and land. This creates polluted environments effecting health and overall quality of life.

# data[].attributes.body
Conversion of forest land for urban use. Affects habitat loss and rise in CO2 levels. Deforestation mostly occurs in tropical rain forest areas.

# data[].attributes.body
The process of depleting a lands natural resources or changing the nature of the land for farm use until it dramatically changes in landscape becoming desert and near to uninhabitable.

# data[].attributes.body
an international treaty designed to reduce earths greenhouse gasses

signed by 192 parties since 1997

known as the "who's to blame" treaty between developing countries and developed countries.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

# data[].attributes.subject
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

# data[].attributes.body
an international treaty designed to protect the earths ozone layer

signed by 46 countries since 1989

scientists predict with this treaty that ozone will return to what it was like in 1980 by 2050.

goal is to eliminate Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)

# data[].attributes.body
In light of learning that we may be in what is called the "Anthropocene"  - the epoch of human development on earth - I was curious to know what my own global footprint is and how I am contributing to pollution...

calculate your own footprint!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Frequently Asked Questions

How many planets does it take to support your lifestyle?
Try our new Footprint Calculator at www.footprintcalculator.org to find out your Ecological Footprint and personal Earth Overshoot Day and learn about solutions to help us all tread more lightly on the Earth.

Please see our Having trouble accessing our new Footprint calculator?
troubleshooting tips for more information.

Are you a student or educator using our calculator?
If so, please share your experience using the calculator by emailing media@footprintnetwork.org. We are collecting stories for a campaign for phase two of our mobile-friendly version of the calculator, which includes plans for an administrator platform for teachers.

Why are my results on your new calculator different from the previous calculator?
Our former calculator was several years old. Global Footprint Network updates its data and methodology every year. Our new calculator features our latest data and methodology and will be much easier to update each year.

The Calculator is currently available in Chinese, English, French, German, Hindi, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. To create country-specific calculators, Global Footprint Network works with local partners to gather regional data on resource consumption. Global Footprint Network is inviting corporate, government, and NGO partners to help us add additional cities, countries and languages to our new calculator. Please Why can't I choose my country and language on your new calculator?
contact us if you would like more details.

Please see the More questions about your Footprint?
Footprint Calculator Frequently Asked Questions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Footprint Calculator - Measure your Impact - Global Footprint Network

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frequently Asked Questions How many planets does it take to support your lifestyle? Try our new Footprint Calculator at www.footprintcalculator.org to find out your Ecological Footprint and personal Earth Overshoot Day and learn about solutions to help us all tread more lightly on the Earth. Please see our Having trouble accessing our new Footprint calculator?

# data[].attributes.body
I really like this plan and the idea that urban planning in Tucson is enforced with the idea that the environment is why people choose to live there.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Get Involved!
Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation online class and event registration
Eco Kids

Environmental Education

Leave a legacy. Donate your property to Pima County's open space program. To date, 17 different owners have donated over 2400 acres of land that have been protected as County conservation areas. Donations may include life estates. To inquire, use the "Send Department Feedback" button on the right side of this screen.

Volunteer to care for natural resource parks and trails.

Conservation Acquisition Commission

Come visit County Ranch Lands !

Living with Urban Wildlife

The Pima County Native Plant Nursery grows or salvages over 200 species of plants for public projects. Tours and volunteer opportunities are available. For additional information, please contact Jessie Byrd, Native Plant Nursery Manager at Jessie.Byrd@pima.gov or (520) 488-8022.

External Links

Video produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about the history and key elements of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. This video is being used by the Service as a training tool for Service staff, private entities, and other juridictions that are interested in undertaking broad-scale conservation planning.

Book chapter on the science behind the Conservation Lands System.

Green Infrastructure In Action book chapter written by the Conservation Fund

Information on Pima County Department of Transportation's Environmentally Sensitive Roadways Guidelines and native plant salvage program.

Information on Pima County Regional Flood Control District's riparian restoration projects.

Wildlife linkages and the Regional Transportation Plan

History

Please visit the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan Map Room for specific map tools such as SDCP Mapguide and SDCP vision map pdfs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Natural Resources, Parks and Recreation online class and event registration Eco Kids Environmental Education Leave a legacy. Donate your property to Pima County's open space program. To date, 17 different owners have donated over 2400 acres of land that have been protected as County conservation areas. Donations may include life estates.

# data[].attributes.body
The Nature Conservancy

Sonoran Institute

Audubon Society

non-profit groups operated by member and donations to develop the practice of conservation outside of the government.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Brian Powell Interview he mentioned volunteer opportunities with Cienega Watershed Partnership. Getting involved is an important part to gaining experience for our futures and involvement with CWP helps to preserve one of the last natural water resources in SE Arizona.

Education, Science, Conservation and Restoration, and Heritage are 4 important aspects of this program!

Here is a link to the website! Find the volunteer link!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stewarding the natural and cultural resources of the Cienega Watershed of Southeastern Arizona.

# data[].attributes.body
I am interested in a career involving water management. I ran into a field of study I was not sure about: Ecohydrology. It means, an interdisciplinary field studying the interactions between water and ecosystems.
Here is a link from UNESCO describing why it's an important field of study for the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ecohydrology programme aims to advance the integration of social, ecological and hydrological research, and to generate outcomes that enable the development of effective policies and practices for integrated water resources management. The International Hydrological Programme (IHP) supports research, networking and capacity building initiatives aimed at improving the understanding of the interlinkages of ecohydrological processes at the catchment scale.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a cool video from the USGS about how scientists work under the surface in the worlds oceans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breaking Down Reefs, Building Up Beaches

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On the remote western coast of Australia lies a UNESCO World Heritage Site above and below the sea. Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey and University of Western Australia convened here at Ningaloo Reef and Jurabi Coastal Reserve to embark on the most extensive study EVER done into how coral reefs shape our coasts.

# data[].attributes.body
The NRCS is an agency that brings farmers and the government together to conserve the land with long-term projects.

It began in 1928 when Hugh Bennett saw the need for soil conservation.

# data[].attributes.body
This is one of my favorite documentaries (found on Netflix) about four best friends whom just graduated from Texas A&M and adopted wild mustangs to prove that you can tame the wild. In the film they guys describe the business of the BLM and the controversies lying between the supporters of the agency and its right for population control and those advocating for letting the horses roam free

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
unbrandedthefilm.com. Four cowboys ride 16 Mustangs 3,000 miles through the wildest terrain in the American West to inspire conservation efforts and prove the worth of 50,000 wild horses and burros living in holding pens. @unbrandedthefilm.com

# data[].attributes.body
In the northwest, Spotted owl are threatened by the invasive Barred Owls. The Spotted Owl is on the threatened species list according to the Endangered Species Act. The Forest Service has allowed for an anthropocentric habitat change to take place through logging, which is what introduced the Barred owl into the area. The only foreseeable solution to saving the Spotted Owl is to kill the Barred Owls. Is there any justice?

Spotted Owl (Photo Credit: Rick & Nora Bowers/Vireo)

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article on The Guardian. It's about how for the first time in years, Grizzly Bears are finally fruitful enough in size to be taken off the endangered species list. The FWS is mentioned about future management plans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Protections that have been in place for more than 40 years for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone national park area will be lifted this summer after US government officials ruled Thursday that the population is no longer threatened.

Grizzlies in all continental US states except Alaska have been protected under the Endangered Species Act since 1975, when just 136 bears roamed in and around Yellowstone. There are now an estimated 700 grizzlies in the area that includes north-western Wyoming, south-western Montana and eastern Idaho, leading the US Fish and Wildlife Service to conclude that the population has recovered.

"This achievement stands as one of America's great conservation successes," the US interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, said in a statement.

Grizzly bears once numbered about 50,000 and ranged over much of North America. Their population plummeted starting in the 1850s because of widespread hunting and trapping, and the bears now occupy only 2% of their original territory.

The final ruling by the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove Yellowstone grizzlies from the list of endangered and threatened species will give jurisdiction over the bears to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming by late July.

That will allow those states to plan limited bear hunts outside the park's boundaries as long as the overall bear population does not fall below 600 bears.

Hunting bears inside Yellowstone would still be banned. The bears roam both inside and outside the park, and their range has been expanding as their numbers have grown.

The Obama administration first proposed removing grizzlies as a threatened species by issuing an initial ruling in March 2016. The 15 months that have passed since then have been used to by federal officials to evaluate states' grizzly management plans and respond to themes of concern generated by 650,000 comments from the public, including wildlife advocates and Native American tribal officials who are staunchly opposed to hunting grizzly bears.

Some 125 tribes have signed a treaty opposing trophy hunting grizzly bears, which Native Americans consider a sacred animal.

Thursday's ruling is certain to be challenged in court by conservation groups that argue the Yellowstone bears still face threats to their continued existence from humans, climate change and other factors. Tim Preso, an attorney for environmental law firm Earthjustice, said his organization will look closely at the rule.

"We're certainly prepared to take a stand to protect the grizzly, if necessary," he said. "There's only one Yellowstone. There's only one place like this. We ought not to take an unjustified gamble with an iconic species of this region."

Matt Hogan, the deputy regional director for the Fish and Wildlife Service's eight-state Mountain-Prairie Region, said he was confident that the science behind the decision and the management plans that the states will follow will withstand any lawsuit.

"We feel like this species is more than adequately protected in the absence of (Endangered Species Act) protections," Hogan said.

Endangered Species Act protections set strict rules meant to protect species from being killed or their habitat being harmed, as opposed to state management practices that can include hunting or trapping as a means to keep an animal's population in check.

Wildlife officials in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming have been managing the bear population alongside federal government officials for decades. Those states have submitted management plans that have been approved, and will follow strict regulations to keep a viable population of above 600 bears, Hogan said.

Scientists also studied the effects of climate change on grizzly bears and their food sources, such as the nuts of whitebark pine trees, which are in decline.

"They found grizzly bears are extremely resilient, extremely flexible and adaptable," Hogan said.

That adaptation has meant switching from nuts to a meat-based diet. That carries the risk of bringing the bears into greater conflict with ranchers protecting livestock and hunters searching for elk and deer, and grizzly deaths caused by human conflicts are on the rise, said Andrea Santarsiere, an attorney for the wildlife advocacy group Center for Biological Diversity.

"Added to those threats will be trophy hunting," she said.

The federal agency will continue monitoring the grizzly population over the next five years, and certain factors would prompt a new federal review of the bears' status, such as a high number of female deaths for three consecutive years.

The ruling does not directly affect other populations of grizzlies that are still classified as threatened but which wildlife officials consider recovered, such as the estimated 1,000 bears in the northern continental divide area of Montana and Idaho.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yellowstone grizzlies lose endangered species protections after recovery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protections that have been in place for more than 40 years for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone national park area will be lifted this summer after US government officials ruled Thursday that the population is no longer threatened.

# data[].attributes.headline
Endangered Species Act and the Mexican Spotted OWL

# data[].attributes.subject
Endangered Species Act and the Mexican Spotted OWL

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of the 1973 Endangered Species Act is to protect and cover species and their habitats for which they depend on.

Endangered vs. Threatened:
Endangered = risk of extinction
Threatened = likelihood of endangerment in foreseeable future

Mexican Spotted Owl:
Threatened in 2 regions
- One of the largest Owls in N. America
-  Predicted to decline 25 - 50% in the long-term
- Affected by: loss of habitat via timber management, urban and suburban development; agriculture and water development in riparian areas; and mining

(Mexican Spotted Owl (U.S. National Park Service)." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, n.d. Web. 20 June 2017. )

# data[].attributes.body
The Love Canal caused quite the controversy in the 1970's, which began a political, environmental, and social movement promoting the health of people from the environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran

3,3',4,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl

What is Dioxin?

Dioxins refers to a group of toxic chemical compounds that share certain chemical structures and biological characteristics (see figure 1). Several hundred of these chemicals exist and are members of three closely related families:

CDDs and CDFs are not created intentionally, but are produced as a result of human activities like the backyard burning of trash. Natural processes like forest fires also produce CDDs and CDFs. PCBs are manufactured products, but they are no longer produced in the United States.

What does dioxin look like?

Dioxin looks like white crystalline needles.

Where does dioxin come from?

Industrial activities: Dioxin is not produced or used commercially in the United States. It is a contaminant formed in the production of some chlorinated organic compounds, including a few herbicides such as silvex. Over the past decade, EPA and industry have been working together to dramatically reduce the production of dioxin in the environment. However it should be noted that though levels have decreased in the last 30 years, dioxins are extremely persistent compounds and break down very slowly. In fact, a large part of the current exposures to dioxins in the US is due to releases that occurred decades ago.

Even if all human-generated dioxins were eliminated, low levels of naturally produced dioxins would remain. EPA is working with other parts of the government to look for ways to further reduce dioxin levels entering the environment and to reduce human exposure to them.
Other ways dioxins are produced:
Burning: Dioxins are formed as a result of combustion processes such as waste incineration (commercial or municipal) or from burning fuels (like wood, coal or oil). EPA's 2006 Dioxin Inventory of Sources Report summarizes that man-made emissions dominate current releases in the US, but acknowledges the need for more data on natural sources. You may not be aware that dioxins can also be formed when household trash is burned or from events like forest fires.
Dioxins produced by backyard burning
Bleaching: Chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper, based on certain types of chemical manufacturing and processing, and other industrial processes this can create small quantities of dioxins in the environment.

Smoking: Cigarette smoke also contains small amounts of dioxins.

Drinking Water: Dioxin can get into drinking water from:

emissions from waste incineration and other combustion that get deposited into bodies of water; and

discharges into water from chemical factories.

Learn more about dioxin in drinking water from the table of regulated drinking water contaminants.
EPA's private drinking water wells

How can dioxin affect my health?

Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause cancer, reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, and can interfere with hormones.

Related Resources

Environmental Laws that Apply to Dioxin

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) / Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

In 2009, former Administrator Lisa Jackson directed EPA to accelerate work underway to reassess the human health risks from exposures to dioxin including completing the development of draft interim preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) for dioxin in soil. PRGs are goals for lowering the concentration of specific chemicals in specific media like soil, sediment, at CERCLA (also known as Superfund) sites, federal facilities and RCRA sites. They serve as a target to use during the initial development, analysis, and selection of cleanup options. These goals are designed to

protect human health and the environment, and

comply with all applicable, relevant and appropriate regulations (ARARs) for all exposure pathways being addressed.

More information:

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors and Clean Air Act

EPA announced the final rule Final Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors in 2005. The rule established national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (like dioxins) for sources that burn hazardous waste: commercial and onsite incinerators, cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, boilers, and hydrochloric acid production furnaces. These standards were promulgated pursuant to Section 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act, which requires EPA to issue technology-based standards reflecting the performance of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).

After EPA issued the 2005 emission standards, the Administrator received four petitions for reconsideration of the NESHAP final rule. EPA granted the petitioners' requests for reconsideration and provided the public with an opportunity to comment on a proposed rule to amend the emissions standards. On October 8, 2008 EPA published a rule announcing the final action regarding the eight issues for which EPA granted reconsideration.

More information:

Congress added Section 129 to the Clean Air Act (CAA) in 1990 specifically to address emissions from solid waste combustion. Sections 111 and 129 require EPA to establish new source performance standards (NSPS) for new units, while sections 111(d) and 129 require the Agency to establish Emission Guidelines for existing units. Both the NSPS and the Emission Guidelines under section 129 use a Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) type approach as used under section 112. NSPS are direct Federal regulations that apply to new sources. Emission Guidelines do not directly regulate solid waste combustion units, but rather, establish requirements for States Plans which are the vehicle by which States implement the Guidelines. Once approved, these State Plans become Federally enforceable. For further information see the clean air act guidelines and standards for waste management which includes a list of the waste incineration rules (Section 129).

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Under TSCA section 8(e), any person who manufactures (including imports), processes, or distributes in commerce a chemical substance (including, generally, dioxin) or mixture and who obtains information which reasonably supports the conclusion that such substance or mixture presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment to immediately inform EPA, except where EPA has been adequately informed of such information.

Under 40 CFR part 766, testing by manufacturers and processors of certain specified chemical substances to ascertain whether those substances may be contaminated with halogenated dibenzodioxins (HDDs)/dibenzofurans (HDFs) is required under TSCA section 4, and under TSCA section 8 manufacturers and processors of certain chemicals are required to report certain information to EPA.

More information:

Additional Resources:

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)

Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) requires certain facilities manufacturing, processing or otherwise using listed chemicals to report their environmental releases of such chemicals annually. The list of reportable chemicals, known as the EPCRA section 313 list and also referred to as the Toxics Release Inventory, or TRI list, was originally identified in the statute and was comprised of more than 300 individual chemicals and 20 chemical categories.

More information:

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA has established a maximum contaminant level for dioxin in drinking water. Learn more about how EPA regulates contaminants under the SDWA and the drinking water regulations for dioxin on these pages:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran 3,3',4,4',5,5'-Hexachlorobiphenyl Dioxins refers to a group of toxic chemical compounds that share certain chemical structures and biological characteristics (see figure 1). Several hundred of these chemicals exist and are members of three closely related families: CDDs and CDFs are not created intentionally, but are produced as a result of human activities like the backyard burning of trash.

# data[].attributes.body
Protect Human health from Human induced impacts on the environment through study, education, and regualtions... Ironic don't you think?

# data[].attributes.body
Rachel Carson is the author of the celebrated book, Silent Spring. She was a scientist and writer and managed to combine both of her passions as a scientific writer. One of her best attributes was her ability to poetically write about science in a way that anyone could understand!.

(1907-1964)
(Photo Credit: Illinois State University)

# data[].attributes.body
This coming week is pollinator week! I found this on the Fish and Wildlife website. I think it's a cool way to bring life to your own back yard where ever you are and to follow up on Anti-Pesticide use!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pollinator populations across the United States are declining, and everyone can help. Pollinators provide vital benefits to people and wildlife - keeping animals and plants that we depend on thriving while bringing us food and supporting the economy. We are focused are on helping at-risk pollinator…

# data[].attributes.body
I am not an artist, however I did create my vision of Silent Spring.

# data[].attributes.body
Both men are influential figures and pioneers in the environmental movement of America.

Ehrlich was know for addressing the worlds population issue and how it's links to overexploitation.

Brower is know for advocating why saving natural beauty is important for future generations.

# data[].attributes.body
American folk singer-songwriter

Known for is experiences in the Dust Bowl era

Known for "This Land Is Your Land" song

# data[].attributes.body
Climate changed and wheat was not' worth much. Selfishness in making money made a unsustainable environmental error -> combo of drought and extreme temperatures coupled with economical needs and over population = reason for dust storms in the great American plains.

# data[].attributes.body
The dust bowl is an example of over-exploited land and a tragic chapter in American agriculture during the age of the Great Depression (1930's - 1940's)

Lesson learned:
Respect the land and listen to what it tells you... don't put things in places it doesn't belong.

# data[].attributes.headline
USDA - U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Cleveland National Forest

# data[].attributes.subject
USDA - U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Cleveland National Forest

# data[].attributes.body
I am so excited about this post!!!

Yesterday I went on my own little field trip to Cleveland National Forest in San Diego county and made a pit stop at the Ranger Station. While there I collected some pamphlets regarding Ecological Restoration and Forest Climate Change. I also spoke with the local ranger whom gave me some details about how to acquire a job with the United States Department of Agriculture. She told me that extensive knowledge of mathematics and ecological sciences are a requirement for managing ecosystems.

A little while later I found myself on a 4,005 foot mountain at a fire lookout and learned about what it is like to be a fire lookout. It's a lonely job but the view is amazing and the rewards are beneficial. Yesterday before 1PM there had already been two fires put out.

Attached I have a valuable read on the Ecological Restoration pamphlet!

# data[].attributes.body
The other day I asked a friend of mine what she thought conservation meant... She began to say protecting the environment, but hesitated because she couldnt actually figure out what it meant. I told her it basically means DEVELOPMENT! She was baffled.

Conservation, I told her, means using all the resources available (soil, timber, water, coal, etc.) now for this generation and utilizing them so they will last for generations to follow.

Another way to look at this is through the Moral Principles of Conservation Ethics:

Equity: fair distribution of natural resources for present and future generations of consumers and users

Efficiency: a natural resource should not be wastefully exploited (like water)

Efficient Resource Utilization: best, highest, and multiple use of resources.

# data[].attributes.body
This week we learned about what conservation actually means. We looked at this term throught the words and view of three prominent voices of this era - Fifford Pincot, Aldo Leopold, and John Muir.

I rather enjoy the ideals of John Muir because he believed people using nature for self-healing was moral. He turned to the Bible to define the value of nature and decided that getting rid of a species is undoing gods work and is an expression of human arrogance. We ALL should thank this man for inspiring Teddy Roosevelt for the idea of creating national parks in the effort to protect the beauty of natural lands!

(Photo Credit: Junior Library Guild)
Teddy and Muir sharing wonderful ideas about why they love nature :)

# data[].attributes.body
Something I found really fascinating were the definitions of ethics in the reading Hunter. 1995. Conservation and Conservation Biology.

John muir’s viewed nature by cherishing it as a temple and not abusing it for its resources. I believe that communication with nature binds some kind of spiritual feeling and thoughtfulness within us and nature. = Romantic - Transcendental Preservation Ethic

Gifford Pinchot’s knew that nature was a great use for harvesting goods through its natural resources for future generations (but this contradicts Muir’s view). Yet it is true that abundant land is there for the taking and is the reason for sustainable living. = Resource Conservation Ethic

Aldo Leopold meshed these two ideas together with his ideas that all species in nature come together to make a whole ecosystem. While Muir identifies nature religiously, Leopold identified nature  equally through an ecological standpoint to help government understand the values of nature with the help of Darwin's ideas as well. = Evolutionary-Ecological Land Ethic

I think that these three ideas are important for understanding the values of nature and why it is important to coexist with it!

# data[].attributes.body
I found this image as something I thought illustrated Hardin's article and I thought this was also a good read!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The social sciences have an ethics problem. No, I am not referring to the recent scandals about flawed and fudged data in psychology and political science. I'm talking about the failure of the social sciences to develop a satisfactory theory of ethical life. A theory that could explain why humans are constantly judging and evaluating, and why we care about other people and what they think of us. A theory that could explain something so trivial as the fact that social scientists care about data fudging.

This is not to say that we have no theories. It's just that they're bad theories. Consider evolutionary game theory. It says that ethical life results from individual rationality. How so? Assume a population of self-interested actors. (A big assumption!) Have them play a one-on-one, zero-sum game with each other, over and over again. (Prisoner's dilemma, anyone?) The winning strategy will be something called "tit-for-tat." The rules of TFT are as follows: 1) be nice in the first round; 2) copy your partner on all subsequent rounds. In other words, if they are mean, you should be mean back; if they act nice, you should, too. In the long run, individuals who follow the TFT strategy will be better off than people who follow a mean strategy. Or so the computer simulations tell us.

This theory is morally satisfying. Nice guys don't finish last after all! But it is not intellectually satisfying. Human evolution didn't really work this way. Early homo sapiens was not modern homo economicus. Our ancestors were not isolated monads. They lived in small groups. They were social animals. A good theory would start with good assumptions-realistic ones. Ethical life just doesn't feel like game theory. Often, it's hot emotion, not cool calculation. It's filled with anger and sorrow, love and joy, not minimizing and maximizing. Finally, a good theory would have to account for why we have moral emotions in the first place. In particular, it would have to account for "niceness" itself.

Of course, evolutionary game theory never got much traction outside economics. In anthropology and sociology, the usual response to the question of ethical life has been a blend of cultural relativism and social constructionism. The standard account goes something like this: Once upon a time, we thought there were moral universals. ("We" meaning our poor, un-enlightened predecessors.) Then, we discovered cultural diversity. ("We" here meaning clever social scientists.) We saw that what is forbidden in one culture may be enjoined in another. (Cannibalism, anyone?) We realized that there is no moral law within us, much less in the starry skies above us. (Take that, Immanuel!) We concluded that all laws are ultimately arbitrary. They are the product of power, not reason, be it human or divine. We understood that human beings are just blank slates on which cultural systems inscribe their moral codes. Or so Nietzsche and his acolytes tell us.

This theory may be intellectually satisfying. It makes us feel very worldly and cosmopolitan. But it is morally unsatisfying. To begin, human moral cultures are not really as diverse as the theory implies. Values and virtues like fairness and generosity are well-nigh universal, even if the concepts and conventions we use to name and express them are variable. What's more, our own relativism is rarely as radical as the theory requires. Who would now deny that the Holocaust was evil? Or that abolition was good? Finally, as anyone who has raised a child well knows, the slates are not exactly blank and the codes are rarely clear. If they were, child rearing would be much easier than it is. In short, we can't be complete relativists in our everyday lives. There is no escaping ethical life.

Still, for all their faults, the rationalist and relativist accounts are not so easily dismissed either. A good social scientific theory of ethical life would need to be compatible with both our current understanding of human evolution and the brute fact of cultural diversity. It would need to show how natural selection could give rise to human ethics. And it would need to show how human history could lead to variation and change in ethical life. It would somehow have to square universalism and historicism. That is a tall order, but that is the aim of Webb Keane's Ethical Life.

Keane's book is in three parts. The first focuses on recent developments in moral psychology, where two strands of work are especially important for Keane. One concerns laboratory studies of child development. Here's an example of the kind of research Keane focuses on. In a fascinating series of laboratory experiments, my colleagues Karen Wynn and Paul Bloom have repeatedly shown that young babies have a moral sense. In each version of the experiment, small infants watched a brief puppet show. One puppet exhibits a positive moral behavior (e.g., sharing, helpfulness, or kindness). Another exhibits a negative one (e.g., selfishness, hindering, meanness). The infants were then given the opportunity to reward and/or punish one or both of the puppets. The majority consistently preferred the nice puppet to the mean one. Keep in mind that these are pre-linguistic babies, some only three months old. These results are awfully hard to square with a rationalist account, which presumes that human beings in the "state of nature" are self-interested monads. And they are also hard to square with the relativist account, which treats moral values as cultural constructions. If either of these theories were right, then little babies would not have a moral sense.

Keane argues that the basic structures of human interaction provide a variety of "ethical affordances"

But where does this moral sense come from? The second strand of work that Keane considers provides the beginnings of an answer. In an ongoing series of books, Michael Tomasello has sought to explain human cognition in evolutionary terms. In his recent work, he puts especial emphasis on what he calls "joint attention." By this he means the capacity of two or more human beings to focus on a shared project, such as gathering food. Tomasello argues that our primate cousins lack this capacity. Great apes forage collectively, he says, but not cooperatively. Out there in the jungle, it's every chimp for herself. Human beings, however, evidence a capacity for joint attention from a very early age. Perhaps you've seen a young child call an adult's attention to an object by pointing at it and looking at the adult. That's the beginning of joint attention.

Tomasello thinks that joint attention conferred evolutionary advantages. To see why, imagine two individuals who both wish to harvest fruit from the upper branches of a tree. Knowing that there are predators about, they are hesitant to do so. Climbing the tree might expose them to attack. If the individuals in question were chimpanzees, they would likely give up. They are capable of imitation but not cooperation, at least not of this sort. But if the individuals in question were early hominids, they could have established a simple division of labor, with one individual standing guard and the other collecting fruit. They probably would not have needed language to do this. Pointing and pantomiming might have been enough. Tomasello speculates that joint attention might have co-evolved with collective foraging. It would have enabled early humans to exploit ecological niches-high-hanging fruit-that their rivals could not.

By now, you might be wondering what joint attention could possibly have to do with human ethics. The answer is a lot, according to Keane, because it requires that we be capable of taking the perspective of another person. And once we have done that, we can also see ourselves through their eyes. In other words, the capacity for joint attention presumes a capacity for second- and third-person perspectives. And this lays the cognitive foundations for moral reasoning. Ego's ability to put herself in alter's shoes gives rise to notions of basic equity. And ego's ability to "observe" her own behavior from "outside" gives rise to feelings of moral obligation vis-à-vis others. In short, no collective foraging, no categorical imperative.

To be clear, Keane is not arguing that the relationship between joint attention and human ethics is a simple one of cause and effect, where one automatically follows the other in law-like fashion. It is one of "affordance." Consider a chair. It is designed for humans to sit on. But it can also be used for other purposes for which it was not designed: to stand on, to block a door, as firewood, and so on. And it can be used by nonhumans, too-a cat, for instance. Now consider a rock. It is not "designed" for humans, or for anything at all. But it can also be used as a chair if it has a large enough and flat enough surface (smaller if you're a cat), or, if it is small and heavy, as a doorstop. Let me put this formally: an affordance "A" is a relationship between two entities "X" and "Y" such that X can use Y to do A even though Y was not designed for X to do A and A is not its evolutionary function, either.

Now we can see how joint attention creates what Keane calls "ethical affordances." Joint attention was not designed to enable human ethics; nor was that its original function. If Tomasello is right, the original function of joint attention was to enable collective foraging. But the second- and third-person perspectives that are required for joint attention can also be employed for ethical reasoning. Is my partner foraging as diligently as I am? Is the fruit being divided evenly? Keane argues that the basic structures of human interaction provide a variety of "ethical affordances" like this.

Keane's framework is "ontologically stratified." It presumes that there really are different levels of social reality, not just in the analyst's mind, but out in the world.

As a linguistic anthropologist, Keane is especially interested in the ethical affordances created by human language. He puts particular stress on abstraction and generalization. Like joint attention, language probably first evolved as a means of coordinating action, rather than labeling things. But the one afforded the other. And once humans began labeling, they were already on the road to generalizing. Labeling requires categorizing, after all. But, again, what does this have to do with ethics? A lot, Keane argues. The capacity for generalizing via language can also be applied to ethics. It can be used to formulate rules, maxims, and codes of behavior. This is important, because ethics is often implicit. Much of our "moral reasoning" doesn't involve conscious reasoning at all. It is driven by moral emotions such as anger and disgust, or sympathy and benevolence. And it is expressed through habitual responses such as headshaking or handshaking. We can also be called to account for our responses. Often, we can even give a rational explanation of these responses after the fact. Once we have done so, however, that explanation may be subject to dispute. For example, we may be told that we were wrong to feel disgusted or angry when we saw two men holding hands on the street. We can imagine various responses depending on the context. "There's nothing wrong with being gay!" "In the Middle East, holding hands is just an expression of male friendship." And so on. The point is that once an ethical response has been made explicit, it is subject to discussion and debate. And discussion and debate might lead us to monitor our habitual responses. Eventually, it might even bring about a change in our emotional responses. Seeing two men holding hands might bring a smile to our faces, instead of a grimace. Indeed, that has been one of the greatest ethical transformations in contemporary Western societies in recent decades.

This is how ethical transformation often happens, namely, through conceptual redescription. Keane gives the example of "consciousness raising" in the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Women learned to redescribe their life experiences with new concepts such as "patriarchy" and "sexual harassment." And this changed their emotional responses to these experiences-from melancholy to anger. Consciousness raising led to policy demands such as equal pay for equal work, but it also led to interactional demands, e.g., for nonsexist language. And inevitably so, says Keane, because ethics is not just a matter of impersonal rules; it is also entwined with personal interactions. Ethics is second-personal as well as third-personal.

Ethical life just doesn't feel like game theory. Often, it's hot emotion, not cool calculation.

But how is ethical life stabilized? By means of "semiotic forms" and "historical objects," says Keane. We are accustomed to conceptualizing culture with immaterial terms (e.g., "ideas," "codes," "binaries," "discourses," and so on). But culture-and ethics-also has material instantiations. These may be human artifacts, such as icons or books. Or they may be human practices, such as gestures or rituals. We may contest the meanings of semiotic forms. We can even contest their very meaningfulness. But we cannot create and sustain meaning without them. Historical objects are complex assemblages of semiotic objects. Icons, books, gestures, and rituals may be assembled into that complex object know as a "liturgy," for example. Add a few more ingredients-a cloister and some robes-and you have a "monastery." Of course, liturgies can be altered or even abolished, just as monastic orders can be reformed or even dissolved. But this will involve material as well as mental work. That is why culture and ethics are not as pliable or fragile as strong forms of cultural constructionism imply.

Now, let's take a step back and look at the theoretical machinery that undergirds Keane's analysis. Keane tacitly distinguishes at least four levels of social reality. Let's call them the physiological, the psychological, the sociological, and the anthropological. Each emerges out of the other. Human culture emerges out of human interactions; human interactions depend on psychic capacities; psychodynamics are rooted in our bodily makeup. Contra the current rage for reduction, in which all the action is bottom-up, Keane assumes that higher levels can exert "downward causation" on lower ones. Cultural change (e.g., the success of feminism) can lead to interactive change (e.g., nonsexist styles of interaction), which can lead to emotional change (anger about "patriarchy" replaces resignation to "male superiority") and even physiological change (gender goes from binary to fluid). In technical terms, Keane's framework is "ontologically stratified." It presumes that there really are different levels of social reality, not just in the analyst's mind, but out in the world.

Importantly, Keane understands the relationship between these levels as one of affordance rather than determinism. Some of the affordances are "bottom-up." For example, the human capacity for linguistic abstraction affords the creation of ethical systems (e.g., utilitarian and Kantian). Others are "top-down." Ethical values such as equality and inclusion afford critiques of sexist interactions. In technical terms, the various levels of social reality are "loosely coupled" rather than tightly conjoined.

To this social ontology, Keane adds a moral phenomenology. Ethical life has three moments. Let's call them "I," "thou," and "me." The "I" moment is unthinking action where consciousness is submerged in doing. The "thou" moment is empathic projection where ego imagines the perspective of alter. And the "me" moment is critical observation of the self where ego looks at herself through eyes of the generalized other. Perhaps we should also add a fourth moment, a historical moment in which ego considers past actions, interactions, and selves as a prelude to further action. We could call that the "we."

In his magisterial essay, "Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions," the German sociologist Max Weber painted a tragic picture of our ethical situation. In the premodern world, he lamented, life and the world were of a piece. Abraham could die in peace, knowing that he had lived a life in full. He had been blessed with wives, progeny, and property. There was nothing more to want. But "cultural beings" ( Kulturmenschen) such as ourselves can never experience this sense of completion. There is always more to know and experience. Nor is that the end of the tragedy. We also live in a world of multiple and competing "value spheres": religious, economic, political, aesthetic, erotic, and intellectual, among others. Each sphere is held together by a particular value, an "ultimate value" that demands our total devotion: salvation, success, power, beauty, pleasure, truth, and so on. What to do? Some would be dilettantes, flitting from one experience to another, collecting stories along the way. That is perhaps the dominant ethos of the present age: "YOLO!" But that was not Weber's creed. He longed for the unity of life that Abraham had enjoyed. The only way to achieve this, he believed, was to devote one's life to a single god, the "daemon" that seized the very fibers of one's being. Not monotheism, the worship of the one true god, then, but monolatry, devotion to one's own true god-that was Weber's ethos.

What is Keane's? He, too, paints an arresting picture of our ethical predicament, albeit a less tragic one than Weber. Where Weber saw multiple and competing "value spheres," Keane sees multiple and competing cultural worlds, both past and present. Once upon a time, these worlds were separate. Some chose to visit other worlds; others did not. No more. Now, one cultural world bleeds into the next, sometimes quite literally, but more often via the global flow of people, artifacts, and ideas. We are all anthropologists now. What are we to do? Stay home? Go native? Be hybrid? Keane does not venture an answer to these questions.

However we answer these questions for ourselves, we cannot escape the phenomenological tension between the first-, second-, and third-person perspectives on ethical life. Some will seek refuge in the first person. They will seek to be "true to themselves," to "listen to their inner voice," and they will respond to challenges with a mix of apology and indignation. Others will immerse themselves in the second person. They will value loyalty to the "tribe," and respond to "outsiders" with a mix of indifference and hostility. Still others-intellectuals, mostly-will take shelter in the third person. They will place a high value on toleration and acceptance, and they will respond to challenges with a phlegmatic aloofness. The problem is that none of us can stand still in any perspective for very long. The affordances of our minds and our languages, and the demands of social cooperation and interaction, will not permit it for long. We cannot escape ethical life. Nor can we find peace in it, either. That, for Keane, is our predicament.

Featured image: Bill Sanderson, The gyri of the thinker's brain as a maze of choices in biomedical ethics (1997). Wikimedia Commons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The social sciences have an ethics problem. No, I am not referring to the recent scandals about flawed and fudged data in psychology and political science. I'm talking about the failure of the social sciences to develop a satisfactory theory of ethical life.

# data[].attributes.body
Take a look at the National Park right in our back yard!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tucson, Arizona is home to the nation's largest cacti. The giant saguaro is the universal symbol of the American west. These majestic plants, found only in a small portion of the United States, are protected by Saguaro National Park, to the east and west of the modern city of Tucson. Here you have a chance to see these enormous cacti, silhouetted by the beauty of a magnificent desert sunset.

The park video that is shown at the Rincon Mountain Visitor Center theater. The video is co-produced by the National Park Service and Western National Parks Association.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Saguaro National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tucson, Arizona is home to the nation's largest cacti. The giant saguaro is the universal symbol of the American west. These majestic plants, found only in a small portion of the United States, are protected by Saguaro National Park, to the east and west of the modern city of Tucson.

# data[].attributes.body
On Sunday June 4th, 2017 Ysabella Zammit began the online summer session of RNR 200 - Conservation of Natural Environments instructed by Jonathan Derbridge at the University of Arizona.

Topics Learned Today:

1. Course syllabus + Exploring the UofA online data bases (Google Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection, Academic Search Complete)

2. An introduction about myslef to my classmates and Jonathan.

3. A discussion about my future career and what I imagine it to be.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thanks for starting your Padlet Ysa.  See if you can add a photo ..perhaps of an elf owl :)  even better, a calling owl! 

# data[].attributes.subject
Thanks for starting your Padlet Ysa.  See if you can add a photo ..perhaps of an elf owl :)  even better, a calling owl! 

# data[].attributes.headline
Because Jonathan and I share a liking for Owls!

# data[].attributes.subject
Because Jonathan and I share a liking for Owls!

# data[].attributes.body
This is the Elf Owl:
the world smallest owl (about the size of a sparrow)

they have excellent night vision and don't make noise when they fly

they live in the saguaro desert in riparian habitats or where there are plenty of cactus to live in

they are threatened by habitat loss in Tucson as more development occurs

they eat invertebrates

when captured they will play dead until the threat has passed

they migrate to Mexico for the winter

(Photo by: Greg Lasley, Google)

# data[].attributes.body
Since we looked at how the cattle industry has been overexploited, I thought it would be interesting to read into the process in which beef is produced!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Beef - It's What's For Dinner - Raising Beef

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Raising beef is a complex process, but throughout the entire journey one thing remains constant - the beef community's shared commitment to raising cattle in a safe, humane and environmentally sustainable way. Learn more about the process of raising cattle from the pasture to the plate.

# data[].attributes.body
I took this picture of a golden retriever keeping an eye on a Javelina eating bird seed in our front yard. My interpretation of this image is the unity that man has with nature still and our ability to coexist. However the irony of it is that the dog and myself are shielded away from the wild animal by the glass door indicating that we can coexist, but under our terms.
(Photo credit: Ysabella Zammit)

# data[].attributes.body
You're doing a great job on your Padlet.  Keep going like this and I think you'll have a really nice result at the end.  Try experimenting with as many of the potential media as possible.