The videos on thessocietys.org in my opinion are absolutely ridiculously written and employ only the negative views in immigration in the viewers minds. Gibbs writings bring up issues of remittance refugee placement and positive ideas on globalization as well as some of the negative ideas. videos like the one directly pointing out the bad apples of mexico immigrating to LA do not take in to account these ideas whatsoever. The fact that the us as a country is responsible for a huge portion of co2 emissions and therefore responsible for a large portion of global warming, makes the us responsible for housing and ultimately caring for the refugees of areas affected by rising water. gibbs states that if the water level were to rise only one meter, globally we would displace 10% of the population from their place of living. should we as the most financialy wealthy countries turn a cold shoulder to those people because a few of them haven't been checked by the law yet, even though we are partly responsible for unrooting them from their homes?gibbs would not say no to these ppl but argue that a way to care for them is needed and to accept them cautiously with the understanding that with out taking care of this in a wise manor we can our self's deplete or land from of our own resources.

The writing on the civil disobedience in arizona is very parrallel to what i see gibbs view point as. the fight for good immigration laws that is fair is essential to of global success. this quote says it best "These new environmentalists represent a new way of thinking. We’re connecting the dots: an ecosystem is your home. Economy is the management of your home. When you globalize your economy, you globalize your ecosystem. Here’s the frank outcome: the ecological systems that support life on our planet have been pushed to the brink by an economy that trashes natural resources and destroys relationships between peoples across the planet in the process. When you convert forests into paper, mountains into coal, and oceans into oil, you force people off their land and deprive those land-based peoples of the resources they depend on to survive. A key lesson from theEnvironmental Justice movement is that supporting those communities in protecting their land and their livelihoods is one of the most strategic ways to fight the drivers of climate change. The root cause of environmental degradation and climate change is the root cause of forced migration." .

To see the direct and indirect drivers you have to know what people as a whole are looking for in life, that means stepping back for us that live in a prominent first world country with all of our liberties and thinking about what we take for granted. living conditions like the bare essentials as water and food can not even be provided in some areas, all people want freedom to live a satisfactory life style deemed so by themselves, like have ing religious freedom and ability to school and ultimately not withstand cruel life. these are ll basic things that most americans would not know how to react if confronted with a situation that stripped them of these what we consider to be given ways of life. these all mentioned as well as the fiscal issue of the lack of revenue in these countries are all direct drivers. the indirect drivers are things that cause these things to happen like major corporation control and corrupt government as well as lack of natural resource in the area and insufficient schooling. As far as the resources go we as people should help implement laws that aid in the decline of global worming and resource degradation in order to help sustain people in their natural environment in order to slow the traffic of people in to foreign countries because that flow intern makes even more global issues and concern for those trying to survive in their home land.

susan gibbs is a smart person and the lesson to take from this is that immigration is not the main issue, the issue is that our conceded way of life is detrimental to the life's of others elsewhere. money comes and goes we should be willing to spend it in order to improve the life's of those around the world and not just further improve ours.

The Next Food Crisis

In 2007 - 2008 the world experienced the first major food crisis. Prices of common food items rose rapidly and left millions of underprivileged people hungry in several countries. Now there is speculation that a similar incident may occur again in the near future.

In the first Food Crisis, there were several economic issues to blame. For instance, failing markets suchas the stock markets and housing markets lead to heavy uncertainty on the part of large corporate investors. These investors then turned to more stable markets to invest their money in. One of the most stable markets in which investments could be made was that of food and agriculture. Thus farmers would sell their crops at fixed prices as they always had. The only difference here was that larger corporations would then by the pre-sold crops and trade them for more and more money which led to the end price for these goods to be heavily inflated and far out of the price range for many families in third world countries. Some philosophers claim that this was a silent massacre of millions. The trade was occurring too fast for anyone involved to notice the inverse and unintended affects. Arguments have been made that in this industry the goods must not simply be observed as profit but as a necessary ingreedient for sustained life as well.

Additionally, areas in which high prices madefood unobtainable were at an even greater disadvantage. Large agri-business corporations such as Monsanto had been buying up foreign lands for years. This was done in order to produce even greater yields at a smaller cost to the producers. Wages were low, yields were large, and profits were endless. However, starving locals no longer had sufficient lands on which they could grow crops for subsistence. So, being too poor to buy food at inflated prices, and without any alternatives millions of people were left to starve.

In recent years this harmful practice has been revealed and some small steps have been taken against it. However, in a world run by money it is hard to inspire legislation to act against these corporations. So, just as food prices have begun to settle the next crisis is already being predicted

Reports from the UN and individual nations in late 2010 have sparked fears of an impending food crisis. This time global climate change may be to blame. Changes in anual weather patterns as well as natural disasters have been to blame for several large crops in various countries and markets to be wiped out. Without a full production of crop the only possible outcome would be heightened prices. In order to feed the hungry government aid in the form of millions of dollars would have to be spent which could inevitably lead to greater stress on the next year's crop. With this a vicious cycle begins to form in which a gradual decrease in funds available to cope with natural disasters and food shortages would lead to the rise of world food prices, and this would put us right back where we were three years ago.

However, today's world is presented with several alternatives. Changing the way in which we obtain our food could help, if not solve, many of these recurring problems. Putting greater emphasis on locally grown foods would increase health, the economy, and decrease dependance on imported goods. Also, modern technology can allow farming practices to put less of a strain on soils and natural resources. Several innovations such as vertical farms could change the food industry for the better. They would alloweasier access to locally grown and healthier foods. They would also be one of the first farming methods to be truly sustainable as water could be recycled and used time and time again, dependence on machinery and oil would greatly decrease, and market fluctuations would begin to settle.

Thus, in order to end the fear of food crises, we must become more conscious of the things we consume everyday and use our consumer economy as a means of power. In the future i see these practices gaining importance in the way we grow and purchase our foods as well as one more step towards our environmental goal of sustainability.

Vertical Farms:

UN warned of major new food crisis at emergency meeting in Rome.

Feeding The World With Technology?

World hunger and poverty is infesting the globe at an extremely rapid and destructive rate. Though there are many programs put in place to attempt to assist these hunger stricken nations, many of them are not enough or in fact do the opposite. The technological innovations of the Monsanto Company in the farming industry are some attempts to control hunger and "feed the world".

Though the support behind their new innovations is valid and legitimate, this Monsanto innovation is not likely to completely feed the world. It is quite clear that hunger is not something that can be fixed with a simple one step cure. There are so many factors contributing to the growing hunger epidemic that a simple cure is simply impossible. Although the Monsanto company has a great proposal, it is very unlikely that their new products, seeds and advertisements will bring a complete solution to world hunger. It is actually more likely that this will do the opposite and bring down local farming support and practices resulting in an increase of the poverty levels. "Corporate control of food and globalization of agriculture are robbing millions of their livelihoods and their right to food" (Shiva, pg. 7). Large corporations like these intend to halt hunger but result in poverty and hunger for those countries to whom they sell their products. Instead of helping, it deeply hurts local farming and farmers, as well as dropping prices so low that third world countries can no longer compete to sell their export crops, quickly leading to market imperialism and the demise of such countries. 'Food First: 12 Myths About Hunger' the author makes a comment that I agree with claiming, "It is not our job to set things right for others. Our responsibility is to remove the obstacles in their path, obstacles often created by large corporations and U.S. government, World Bank and IMF policies" (pg. 3).

These technologies are likely to most benefit the large corporations for the most part, with some beneficial factors for farmers. The farmers can benefit from this because they will be the ones who are using the corn seed products, producing cash crops and are being informed on farming families affected by hardships. Along with keeping farmers informed and supplied, companies such as Monsanto teach farmers how to use these products for maximum output, what tools to use, and how to conserve. The Monsanto GMO corn seeds are a more efficient way of farming, easy to use, and produce more while conserving more. While these seed products and advertisement displays are directly used and impacting farmers and their families, the large farming corporations are the ones who get the maximum benefit from the new innovations. In the end, the corporations benefit the most and make all of the money, but at the same time are not responsible for the problems that may result.

The reading of the 12 Myths About Hunger presents the idea that most of the things people would typically deem as the cause or source of the hunger epidemic across the globe, actually are not. Ideas such as free trade, U.S. aid, overpopulation and nature are not to blame for the worlds hunger issue. In an attempt to control hunger, Monsanto takes steps that seem to be helping farmers, but are they really? In my opinion, the company operates with an innovative perspective and worldview. The Monsanto company wants to create new original ideas that will soon be responsible for feeding the world. I do not deny that they intend for their new products to be beneficial and helpful to the farming communities and families across the country, but while doing this, these new innovations can perhaps land more on the destructive side of things once everything is said and done. It is likely that these products will end up doing the antithesis of what they are originally intended to do. The result of innovations like these is countries relying solely on imports from other countries rather than supporting their local farming businesses.

It is extremely hard to tell or decide whether companies and innovations such as these will do a great deal of harm or help starving countries to flourish. These products create a very bitter-sweet deal for the worlds farmers. They are produced with feeding the world close in mind, but the intentions of the company is not what matters. What matters is the end result, and in many circumstances like this the end result is not good, beneficial or feeding the world. The end result is typically destruction, poverty and increase in hunger rates globally.

"Food if our most basic need, the very stuff of life." (Shiva, pg. 5)



-Allison Williams

A Dehumanizing Culture

People often resort to dehumanization as a result of preconceived hatred and prejudice toward others that deviate from their perception of a master narrative. Dehumanizing an individual or a group of individuals can be based on perceived racial or ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, genders, minorities of various sexual orientations, disabled people as a class, social groups, and economic classes, such as the homeless. A prime example of this is the story of Steven Green, a former 101^st airborne soldier. On March 12, 2006, Green carried out an attack on a family near Mahmoudiya, Iraq, that left him serving five consecutive life sentences. According to dailymail.co.uk, Green allegedly for raped and killed a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and in addition to killing her parents and sister. Green claimed that he didn't think of Iraqi civilians as humans after being exposed to extreme warzone violence.

The news article reported that upon arriving in Iraq, Green said his training to kill, the rampant violence, and derogatory comments by other soldiers against Iraqis served to dehumanize that country's civilian population. After spending considerable time in Iraq a turning point came for Green on December 10, 2005, when a previously friendly Iraqi approached a traffic checkpoint and opened fire.

The shots killed Staff Sgt. Travis L. Nelson, 41, instantly. Sgt. Kenith Casica, 32, was hit in the throat. Casica died as soldiers raced him aboard a Humvee to a field hospital. Green said those deaths, “messed me up real bad.” The deaths intensified Green's feelings toward all Iraqis, whom soldiers often referred to by a derogatory term. “There's not a word that would describe how much I hated these people,” Green said. “I wasn't thinking these people were humans.” This occurrence suggests that some individuals believe that dehumanizing someone to a level lower than human justifies violence toward them.

Dehumanization is such a cross-culturally effective tool because cultural and religious groups are prime targets for dehumanization. When one particular ethnic or cultural group holds a hostile sentiment toward another group, it becomes a norm of social construction and is accepted by that society. A prime example of this is Ibrahim Mudayris, a Hamas religious official, who addressed Jews as monkeys and pigs at a press conference (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrj5yGnAwnc). Prejudice toward Jews had become socially acceptable to such an extent within the Palestinian community that it was seemingly politically correct for Mudayris to slander the Jewish class in public. This idea is further supported by Robert R, Higgins when he writes, “Race, gender, and class dynamics are intimately and inextricably interwoven in the fabric of environmental crisis. As a result, the environmental crisis is inherently a social justice crisis as well.” Clearly, social groups will adapt to dehumanization and grow to accept it if it becomes widespread. It is apparent that elements of dehumanization will always be present in society because it is human nature to judge others.

- Alex Wann

Electronic Culture: Designing for the Dump

E waste and the digital dump are two new concepts in today's society - technology is advancing at a faster and faster rate, while our consumer-driven culture buys more and disposes more (and at a faster rate) than ever before. But with this mass production and consumption of electronics comes two dangerous new concepts: E waste - the toxins and refuse created by the production and operation of electronics, and the digital dump - the graveyard for all obsolete pieces of electronic machinery.

In The Story of Electronics (2010), the concept of "Designing for the Dump" is introduced. This strategy is used by electronic manufacturing companies to make innovative electronics with short life spans, therefore resulting in a market saturated with shiny new products, and consumers who dispose electronic products fivolously to gladly buy the new and improved ones.

This results in tons and tons of electronic waste that gets shipped overseas and "recycled" - but in reality, it just gets dumped.

You can watch Electronic Trash Village - China to see the final resting place of all those old, boxy televisions you threw away for flat screens, or the hard drives you mindlessly threw into your garbage bin. In fact, according to the Electronic Trash Village video, a UN report found that 70% of the worlds electronic waste is sent to China, where it forms a sort of refuse village. Half of the workers in these refuse villages are ex-farmers trying to take advantage of this new opportunity to make money harvesting micro chips and etc. Besides the fact that the work being done in these villages is illegal, the fumes from disasembling old electronics are dangerous and potentially fatal to these unprotected workers. These toxins seeping out of old electronics are a direct driver of children in surrounding villages getting lead poisoning and other sicknesses from chemicals in their drinking water - those toxins get into the ground and then go into the river. The fundamental cause of all of these problems is the toxic content of the electronic refuse produced by nations of the global north.

The wealthy ultimately benefit from and are ultimately responsible for this vicious cycle - getting shiny new electronics and dumping the old ones off on the lowest class who don't know their rights and/or don't have the power to speak out against whats being done - otherwise known as the least-resistence strategy. Sure, recycling seems like a great idea! In The Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy, Figueroa states "...the nations of the global North-whose industrial development and overconsumption of resources has contributed so heavily to these problems - are now among the most vehement in advocating pro-environmental measures...solutions that complicate the picture bt proposing remedies that are affordable only by the wealthier nations"(pg 7). That's where the NIMBY (Not in My Backyard) principle comes into play...where do we take this obsolete technology to let it sit and be sorted through? Overseas. Anywhere other than our own backyards. Little do the big-wigs who came up with this genuis recycling plan know that what they're doing is a total environmental injustice, in every sense of the word(s).

There are a few types of justice that could be implemented to remedy this problem; distributive justice - imposing take back laws (ie: you make it, you take it back and dispose of it properly) thus forcing companies that manufacture and design these products to design longer lasting, modular electronics that can be fixed  more easily than disposed of, participatory justice - which as a subsidary of distributive justice would mean further expanding on the advocation of take back laws as well as more sustainable methods of production and making sure that the people who represent you in your gonvernment know that this is a big issue that can't go overlooked, and recognition justice - acknowledging the harm done to the villagers where these old electronics are being dumped as well as the workers who are enduring extremely harmful working conditions for very little money by providing aid, counseling, support and monetary compensation for damages.

- Meredith Whittier

Feral Humanity

The question is: If we aren't born "human," but must become "human," do feral children (half-human half-"animal") deserve human rights? Is it speciesist to grant feral children rights and not extend this to other species equally as conscious. Let us first break down the word "Human". When we look at the dictionary definition we find: having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings; "human beings"; "the human body"; "human kindness"; "human frailty". Another word derived from the word human is "humane" it's definition is: marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering. How we treat others is based solely on how view others. Let us not forget there is no inherent law saying that we should and should not do anything. Others think people are as simple as clock work, simple cogs working in a machine and that its the different placement of these gears that creates everything including our emotional behavior. A website called http://www.keirsey.com/ goes as far as to say there are only 16 different types of people in this world evenly categorizing everyone into their specific characters. But nowhere in these 16 characters is one that describes feral children or feral beings. Does that mean these feral people are any less human than every other human being? Everything else is learned either through emotional experience or environmental teachings. But there are things that we as the average human do that thickens that line between the human race and everyone else. It is not how many differences there are between humans and other races that ever thickens that imaginary line between humanity and nature, it is the magnitude.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8fz2u_is-it-real-feral-children-4of-5_webcam

It is said that it is human nature seek affection from another being regardless of race. In the case of Oxana she was abandoned as a young child and in her emotional distress she sought affection from an unlikely of creatures. She sought help from a mother wolf who raised her as an early child where she learned to act and behave like a wolf. Is it specieist to give these people clothing and rights we give other people? Well to be fair it is natural to treat a human like a human. But if these feral beings prove to be problems in a common human atmosphere which includes interaction with other people then according to law around the world it is they do not deserve these natural human rights. According to Aristotle's definition of natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature. Other philosophers such as Tom Regan argue that all animals have inherent rights and that we cannot assign them a lesser value because of a perceived lack of rationality. But in the case of Oxana Malaya she has been deemed unsafe to be placed into a normal human society because of her animal like behaviors. Oxana the wolf girl has now become Oxana the mentally impaired. She remains in a ukranian mental hospital where she tends the cattle of the facility. She says she is happiest when she is with other dogs. She has also stated that she likes to bark and howl because it is in her nature. A girl who has been given the recent gift of speech fully understands the word naturally and is using in a way that makes not only sense to her but to other people. She doesn't just want to do these dog like behaviors she feels the need to at sometimes occasionally creating loud outbursts at other people under the right occasions some even violent. It isn't feral people that lose their rights to be treated like a human. It is the people who are too dangerous to be out in public that lose their rights. It is a terrible shame that Oxana was put through such a hard life.

-Mark Wagner