Biosolids to the Rescue!

I’ll admit that I have thought about what happens to our waste. We go about our business, flush the toilet, then where does our fecal matter go?! Does it just sit in pipes and sewage systems? But look at how many people there are in this world…if everyone goes just once a day, that’s quite a build-up! Actually, wastewater is treated to create biosolids.

Biosolids are nutrient –rich organic materials that result from the treatment of human waste from sewages. Biosolids can be applied as fertilizer to improve and maintain productive soils and stimulate plant growth. They are used in the forestry industry to promote the growth of trees and used by farmers and gardeners to quicken the growth of agricultural crops, fertilize gardens, and reclaim mining sites. Biosolids can be highly valuable resources, because they are made of natural components suitable for replacing chemical fertilizers. They can be composted and are even sold and distributed to be spread over lawns in some places.

Biosolids are created in the process of treating wastewater and are the residuals when the water is purified to make the water safe to drink, for recreational purposes, and to improve marine water quality for recreation and seafood harvesting. When wastewater reaches the sewage treatment plant, industrial facilities pre-treat the wastewater to remove hazardous contaminants before it is sent to treatment. The sewage goes through physical, chemical and biological processes to separate water from the waste. The solids are treated to the right pH level and odours are eliminated. The process also sanitizes the wastewater to kill disease-causing bacteria, viruses and parasites.

The topic suggests that biosolids are only used as sustainable agricultural fertilizer in other parts of the world, but this practice is actually used in Canada, as well as the United States. Municipalities are required to treat wastewater in Canada. Their options include recycling the biosolids as fertilizer, to incinerate it, or to bury it in a landfill.

In the Ottawa-Carleton region, biosolids are disinfected at the Pickard Centre, where the initial part of the process is to separate water from sludge. The water is brought back to the Ottawa River, while the sludge goes through a process to eliminate moisture and bacteria. A polymer solution is added to the sludge to create biosolids. They are regularly checked for contamination, as there are strict rules on the use of biosolids from the Ministry of Environment. Biosolids are not allowed to be used for home gardening and plants due to regulations. They contain high contents of nitrogen, phosphorus and metals that are good for growing crops. Biosolids are used as fertilizers for hay, corn, pasture, commercial sod, cereal, ornamental crops, and trees. In Quebec City, biosolids are dried into pellets to power the municipal incinerator. Other cities in the country, including Toronto, turn sludge into synthetic crude oil and coal. Burning biosolids create ash that can be used to make concrete and planting soil. Farming communities in Ontario actually ask for biosolids to be used on their land and are pleased with the results.

(Pickard Centre, Ottawa)

In other countries such as Ghana and China, farms and agriculture are irrigated with urine and wastewater. Human waste is used as fertilizer in Zimbabwe due to shortages of nitrate. Some countries collect the waste and seal it up so that it goes through anaerobic digestion that creates biogas as a side product. Biogas can be used to fuel cooking stoves and heating systems, as well as cars. China aimed to have millions of households operating biogas systems. In Uganda, farmers are taught how to make biogas with their feces and organic waste. In Sweden, they went all out and created biogas from rotting animal carcasses and run trains on it.

Some environmentalists have expressed concerns, such as biosolids putting toxins in the soil. Others say that sewage treatment should be researched further before applying it to our lands. However, many health experts support the land application of biosolids. If you really think about it, it kind of makes sense. We use horse and cow manure to plant things, so is human waste that different? The Water Environment Assosication of Ontario compiled a report in 2001 that stated the use of biosolids are safe in Ontario. Citizens have been worried with how biosolids would smell, but it depends on how they have been treated. Some smells are due to their composition of sulphur and ammonia, important nutrients for plants.

The use of human waste as fertilizers has been around for centuries. They have proven to be quite safe, but it sounds kind of gross, right? It sounds like we have a case of “fecophobia”, a term created by Joseph Jenkins to describe the fear of human excrement. In this man’s book, he points out that it’s insane not to realize the fact that: "you take your dump into a large bowl of drinking water, then flush it. Why do we believe this to be the civilized thing to do? What a waste. Where does the flushed material go? What would happen if everyone in the world crapped in their drinking water supplies? Why doesn't any other land mammal defecate deliberately in water? Why do we?”

These are good questions and I suggest you think of an answer, too. With the way society is, I don’t think it is civilized either to do your business all over the place or wherever you please, but why are we doing it in clean water? Or could we go about our business in the forests just like the wild animals do? I don’t know what the answer is, but this is quite the interesting topic. As for the use of biosolids, I think the pros outweigh the cons and I don’t have a problem with the way it is used now. Are there really even cons? No doubt about it, I don't know if I could handle the smell. But that's just a small price to pay if we can cut back on all the chemical fertilizers and with biogas, we could cut back on a lot of electricity, too. With everyone become more environmentally friendly and aware, I think that the widespread use of biosolids can really help the earth. And we all excrete waste, so no one can say they didn't do their part for the environment. Who knew an answer to going green would be right in our toilet bowls?

Works Cited

Canadian Water and Wastewater Association. (2003-2010). FAQ- Biosolids. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from CWWA: http://www.cwwa.ca/faqbiosolids_e.asp

Mills, D. (2001, February). Is Human Waste Safe as Fertilizer? Retrieved April 5, 2010, from Peace and Environment News: http://www.perc.ca/PEN/2001-02/s-mills2.html

Nierenberg, D. (2007, October 11). Real organic agriculture: Using human waste as fertilizer. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from Worldwatch Institute: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5394

van der Zee, B. (2008, January 17). Crazy idea, but it just might work. Retrieved April 5, 2010, from guardian.co.uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/17/waste.renewableenergy

Photo Sources:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/wp-content/upload/2009/10/biosolids.jpg

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/waterwaste/rop_centre_en-1.jpg

Technology and Beyond

I originally thought it was an interesting topic to discuss the importance of technology to learn more about the different systems of the body. Don’t we need to know about the body in order to create a solution? Well, I was only part right. After researching, it began to make a lot more sense. Inventors/scientists need to have knowledge to base their technology on, but when they make prototypes, things don’t always go as planned. They will encounter problems along the way, and thus, need to keep re-modifying their plans. In situations like these, more things are learned about the body and its limits are tested.

Technology is crucial to our understanding of the different systems of the body. Ultimately, all body systems are intertwined and interdependent to form the complex system that is the human body. Our digestive organs would not work if the circulatory system did not do its job to supply blood and oxygenate the cells, so that their functions can be carried out. Trying to implant an artificial lung, some consideration needs to be done about how the rest of the body will accept it. In learning how to suit other parts and components of the body, we gain more knowledge. Let’s examine this idea with the case of the artificial heart, from various cases of artificial heart use throughout the years.

In March of 1983, it was reported in the L.A. Times that the first recipient of an artificial heart died 112 days after the implantation. The article is in the archives which means you’d have to pay to read the entire article, but from what I could read, he had gone through a series of setbacks from a permanently implanted heart. The artificial heart still needed to be refined and continued to do so, up until today and beyond.

In August of 1985, a man in Arizona was given a Jarvik-7 (shown on the left) artificial heart, the first authorized artificial heart used temporarily for those waiting for a heart donor. In October of the same year, a man was given an improved artificial heart compared to the Jarvik-7. This advanced heart was designed to reduce blood clotting, but despite this, the man went into critical condition the next day, going into stupor as the blood vessels leading to the brain were constricting. He lasted long enough to receive a donor heart, but died 18 days later, after suffering an inflamed pancreas and fevers.

In 2006, hearts were meant to help patients live long enough to get a heart donor. A fully implantable heart was created, except there was a problem—it didn’t have a pulse. Previous models of hearts used pumps to create a pulse that pumped blood throughout the body. The idea of whether having a pulse or not would affect the human or animal were debated. Some said that not having a pulse would mean the small capillaries would not get blood, resulting in organ failure. Others said that continuous flow devices are equally as safe as pumps that pulse. I have not found an updated article on this topic, or whether their research proved it fit to use in humans.

Now moving forward to September 2009, not too long ago, Abiomed created a self-contained heart that runs on battery. The procedure will cost $250, 000, which is double the price of a heart transplant in the United States of America.


The journey to find the perfect heart involves lots of research, and in research we make discoveries. Take the case of diabetes, where not much was known about the disease, and was often referred to as the “sugar sickness”. Researchers Banting, Best, and their research team discovered insulin. Insulin explained the disease and the cure. It was discovered through testing of blood sugar and extractions from the pancreas that began to work miracles on diabetics, who would have otherwise died. Although not part of the digestive, circulatory or respiratory system, bionic eyes are also being developed to help the blind.

An article in 2003, stated that putting in electronics into the eye, a corrosive environment, could be a problem. Devices that are not biocompatible could cause major tissue reactions. But with technology advancements and research, some predict that the eyes could be fully ready by 2011. In a recent article, a toddler’s parents are fighting for an artificial cornea to save their daughters life, who could be blind before the age of 3. Technology really does improve our knowledge of how the human body works and all its internal components. But like all good things, technological “cures” should only be used on patients who need it, instead of people who want to be perfect or superhuman.

But aside from the main topic, all this talk about the future of technology, with bionic eyes, artificial hearts, bionic limbs…artificial everything really got me thinking. Some fictitious stories talk about the future—of a battle between the human race and robots. Something that I’ve never thought of was Who’s side am I going to be on? With the advancements in technologies, we just might be those robots (well probably not us, but further down the family tree). That scares me, despite that it would so cool to be a real Transformer! All these idioms we use in today’s society would take on a whole new meaning. Your heart is artificial, so what could you possibly feel there? You would not be looking into the eyes of the one you love, but into a silicon chip. Would we really be human? From all these articles about the heart, I’ve realized that the best is natural, and nothing can really beat the human heart, SO TAKE CARE OF YOURSELF AND BE SURE TO EAT YOUR VEGETABLES!

Works Cited

(The work cited list is very broken, because blogger made me delete a lot of it so it could post...)

Altman, L. (1985, August 30). ARIZONA MAN GETS ARTIFICIAL HEART. Retrieved

March 8, 2010, from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/30/us/arizona- man-gets-artificial-heart.html>>

Chicago Tribune wires. (1985, November 15). 1ST TO GET PENN STATE HEART DIES.

Retrieved March 8, 2010, from The Chicago Tribune:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/25074334.html? dids=25074334:25074334&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Nov+15%2C+1985&author=Chicago+Tribune+wires&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=1ST+TO+GET+PENN+STATE+HEART+DIES&pqatl=go>>

Chicago Tribune wires. (1985, October 23). HEART PATIENT GOES INTO STUPOR; CRITICAL.

Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Chicago Tribune: >>

DYING MAN RECEIVES NEW TYPE OF ARTIFICIAL HEART. (1985, October 15).

Retrieved March 8, 2010, from The New York Times: >>

Nelson, H. (1983, March 24). First Recipient of Artificial Heart Dies. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from

Los Angeles Times:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/679785852.html?dids=679785852:679785852&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Mar+24%2C+1983&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=First+Recipient+of+Artificial+Heart+Dies&pqatl=google>>

Roberts, B. (2010, February 16). Tot's bionic bid to beat blindness. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from

Mirror.co.uk News:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/02/16/to-s-bionic-bid-to-beat-blindness-115875-22045883/>>

Sandhana, L. (2003, July 16). Bionic Eyes Benefit the Blind. Retrieved Feburary 17, 2010, from

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/07/59634>

Singer, E. (2006, September 21). An Artificial Heart That Doesn't Beat. Retrieved Feburary 16,

2010, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology: >>

Weisman, R. (2009, June 29). Artificial heart's use marks milestone. Retrieved Feburary 17, 2010,

>

Artificial Reality

This whole blogging thing is starting to get really intense. I've delayed in writing this blog long enough, so where should I start? I really didn't know where to go when I read the topic...I mean, last topic, I argued that humans should not be able to modify the genes of their children. But our whole lives, the food we eat and even some of our dogs or animal friends have been genetically enhanced or mutated. Really, is there any justification in this and under what rights do we have?

When I ask myself these questions, I think of the blog topics we have all previously wrote about. Think back to when we were talking about whether or not we were good stewards of the world. When I wrote that blog, I thought about global warming and climate change. That's large scale stuff. But what about the things we eat everyday and all the groceries in the supermarket. Is anything real these days? Think about it...we don't live in God's natural, beautiful world anymore...it's just all fake, nothing like what He intended it to be.

But honestly, I could see how we got here, just like how I'm sure the people of the appropriate generation could see how designer babies and whatever other monstrosities we cause, were created. Everything (most things, anyways) always starts out seeking good, but we always end up taking it too far. I can see how people started making their crops disease resistant by modifying it genetically, because back then, this was their livelihood and their families needed to be fed. A bad harvest was devastating. This is just how modifying human genes started, when people started to find a cure for sex-linked diseases. Genetically modifying dogs? People wanted dogs to perform certain tasks and to do certain things. Yes, kind of selfish, but not as bad as having people today purposely make "dog show worthy" dogs. I don't blame people who own mixed bred dogs, because I have one myself (see below-his name is Boomer!), so I hope this isn't a biased opinion. But I think people who own dogs in general are dog-lovers and it wouldn't matter if they were purebred or mixed. Mixed dogs aren't bad, because different types just...might have had a connection - it's wrong when humans step in to encourage it. Mixed bred dogs are just the norm of today's society, as are all kinds of genetically modified crops and animals.

The wide variety of foods we have come to love and know have most probably been genetically modified somewhere down the line. When we really think about it, a part of us thinks it's wrong, but the other part of us thinks "How could it be wrong? I've lived like this my whole life, so it's impossible that there's a problem." A lot us think like this, because we don't want to open the door to the possibility of opening the door to changing the way we live our life, because life is good. Like they say, ignorance is bliss. To be honest, I don't know what we can do. But I think just knowing will do us good in the future. Maybe realizing the mistake we made can prevent the human race from making another mistake, such as allowing parents to select the genes of their children. We need to think beyond ourselves.

We always think things of the world in relation to us, as if we're in the center of it. But lwe're not, so let's take a look at something other than ourselves, like animals . Animals can be mutated by artificially selecting traits, which is very inhumane. Take the example of a chicken selected to be without feathers. Their nakedness makes them more vulnerable to sunburn, parasites, and mosquitoes. Male chickens are unable to flap their wings, making them unable to mate. Seriously, if they ain’t broke, don’t fix ‘em.

Let's go back and take a look in the mirror. You know, since we do think we're at the center of the universe, it would help if we used this mentality to see just how much our lives depend on the livelihood of others. We truly are all in this together. To answer the question from the first blog, no, we are not good stewards of the earth, because we cater to ourselves first and this is not an attribute of a good steward. In my designer babies blog, I said that humans would always try to find something fix. Maybe we need to fix ourselves, and I don't mean by altering our genes. We need to change our mindset to the fact that things always have a way of working themselves out, WITHOUT our help. And for this blog, I would like to conclude that artificial selection is wrong with the wrong intentions. So where will you stand?

Works Cited

Answers Corporation. (2009). artificial selection. Retrieved December 13, 2009, from Answers.com: http://www.answers.com/topic/artificial-selection

Education, B. (2009). Artificial Selection. Retrieved December 9, 2009, from Understanding Evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE4Evochange.shtml

Wikianswers-What are the advantages and disadvantages of artificial selection? (2009). Retrieved December 2009, 14, from Wikianswers: <>

no one can be perfect? think again.

GENES FOR SALE. YEAH, GENES, NOT JEANS.

Designer babies - this is one touchy topic. The real center of this issue is whether or not things are getting out of hand. At first (before I even saw this blog topic), I thought that research into genetics explained a lot of things, but..." curiosity killed the cat". In the previous blog, we discussed that some technologies were killing the earth. Is the creation of technology to understand things really that crucial to our survival? But with this unit, we learned about genetic-related disorders. With "designing" your child, you can help create their genetic make-up, so that your child will not have faulty genes that can lead to diseases such as cystic fibrosis. This is the original intention of genetic technology and this is not technology getting out of hand.

If you think about, you wouldn't be against people using technology to find a cure for cancer (Heck, you've probably done some kind of fundraising to help the cause!). People always say though, that the cure for sickness, whether it is STIs or the influenza, prevention is always key. Cancer is hard to prevent, but with this new information, genetic-related disorders can be prevented. Maybe this is the cure to erase sickness like Huntington's chorea and hemophilia.

Okay, but let's snap back to reality. When you have a way of creating a beautiful world of beautiful people, people are going to want a piece of it. We live in a superficial world, and it is not farfetched for people to want to have build the most outer attractive children with certain qualities in their personality. We live in a culture so obsessed with good looks and the magic of perfection. Experts say that we can expect to design our children in the way we want to them to behave and act. This distorts the original intention of genetic research, which will create chaos and debates on ethical and social implications. People are already taking sides on whether this is right or wrong, thus we know that technology is getting out of hand.

ETHICAL and SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Sorry, but CBS seems to only stream current news when I embed it, so please watch

the video on this link: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4840229n&tag=related;photovideo

In my opinion, this is so wrong. Imagine a world where everyone looks the same. We might as well have robots. In the Time Magazine, it says "Adapting a technique used on livestock, researchers at the Genetics & IVF Institute in Fairfax took advantage of a simple rule of biology: girls have two X chromosomes, while boys have one X and one Y." and "... parents may be going to fertility clinics and picking from a list of options the way car buyers order air conditioning and chrome-alloy wheels." Children are NOT livestock or car parts -- they are living human-beings, who have emotions and feelings. You can’t put expectations on a child before they are even born. What if they don’t turn out just as their parents wanted? The higher the expectation, the more the disappointment follows, if what you put your hope into doesn’t meet your standards. This is especially so, when money is involved with such a costly procedure. It is such a sad truth that money rules our society and culture.

Yes, money plays an important factor in our society. Ever hear the saying, “The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.”? Well that is what will happen when people get to select the traits of their children. The division between these two social classes will grow bigger, as only the rich will get to participate in this process. Only they will have “perfect” children.

Upon research, I stumbled on a possibility that I never even thought of. In places like China, only males are preferred. Having everyone choose to have a boy will mean that there can be an entire generation of males. What happens to their population, when procreating becomes a problem? Yes, this is an extreme scenario, but no one really knows what will happen when gene selection practices are available.

For the child, imagine being in a classroom, with half of the children genetically modified and half who are not. Growing up as a child will be different, when the way they were brought to be were different from others. Imagine growing up, knowing that your parents selected you from the way you look to the way you act—they controlled you. You have a higher expectation and must live up to who your parents intended you to be. At least for you now, you can tell your parents that you are just who you, because God made you that way. Also, exactly what kind of message do parents who will participate in this process send? Superficiality and shallowness will just deepen from generation to generation.

This leads to some very important questions that prospecting parents need to ask themselves: is it that important for your child to have “good traits”? What are “good” traits? Why is this such a big influence—will your feelings toward a normal child and a child who has their genes pre-selected be different?

There are a lot of things that needs to be discussed when it comes to this issue.

The good thing is that scientists have not perfected gene selection accuracy and they have not been able to validate that it is a completely safe practice.

In fact ... (WARNING! Animal Lovers...you may want to skip this part!)

On this website, I found the following information:

“Animal studies have shown that this type of genetic engineering is unpredictable. There is a huge risk that we may produce physical changes, or even change the child's personality. Mice whose genes had been changed to make them more muscular, unexpectedly became very timid compared to other non-genetically engineered mice!

However, some scientists think they will become more certain about how a gene will act if it is engineered into a person or an animal.

Will future humans have animal genes added to them to give them superhuman abilities? This really could happen. Human genes have been engineered into animals for years.”

Okay, so this is insane, for two reasons. We don’t know what effects can take place, which means our search for perfection will result in faults anyway. The second thing is that...we are debating whether selecting the genes of a child is ethical, yet there is the potential that we can have the genes of an animal?! When will we be content?

I guess the answer is never. Look at what one person said in an interview with Time Magazine:

“"There may be problems," admits James Watson, whose co-discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 made all this possible. "But I don't believe we can let the government start dictating the decisions people make about what sorts of families they'll have."

Like SERIOUSLY? Yes, the government cannot dictate the kind of family you have...but somewhere along the lines...we think we can. We think we are so entitled to everything, truth is...we’re not, and that is why there is a downside to every upside. So I've thought again as to whether or not someone can actually be perfect. The answer is still no. It might be perfection in your eyes, but it's just artificial in mine.

This is my brother and he didn't need to be designed a special way to be the cutie that he is.

As you can probably guess I'm trying my best to follow the rules and not take pictures off Google as much as I can : )

Works Cited

Bionet. (2002). Right and Wrongs. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from BIONET: http://www.bionetonline.org/English/content/db_eth.htm

CBS. (2009, March 3). "Designer Babies" Ethical? Retrieved October 23, 2009, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/03/earlyshow/health/main4840346.shtml? tag=contentBody;currentVideoInfo

Lemonick, M., Park, A., & Thompson, D. (1999, January 11). Designer Babies. Retrieved October 23, 2009, from TIME: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,989987-3,00.html

your love is like poison

How many of us would say that we love the world? Maybe we love the fish we ate last night for dinner. Or our backyards that turned from a garden to a patio, or to go back a little bit, the plot of land on which our houses were built. Well, in such cases as well as many others, our love is like poison. We love the earth so much, that we can't seem to get enough...not enough fish, not enough paper, not enough oil, not enough pencils ... to the point where it's overkill. We no longer love it for what it is, but for what it can provide.

Exactly how invasive are we? How much have we overstepped our boundaries as the caregivers of the world? Is it our job to think we are God, in a way that we can take control of biodiversity, from the plants to the animals, to entire ecosystems? I'm sure everyone has their own opinions, but let's explore some of the ways that our human tendencies to think we are almighty have caused negative implications on the environment.

Pollution: Different forms of pollution, have different effects on living organisms. Acid rain, can kill off many types of sea creatures, such as mollusk and fish, because they can not survive in the acidic levels in the water. Other ways of pollution, such as our waste management, toxic chemicals and use of pesticides and cleaners, enter into water bodies that are used by animals and humans.

Urbanization: From 1871 to 1991, the percentage of people living in urban areas increased from 19% to 77%. Really, this means that more land is converted into homes, more people are driving cars and more people are being consumerists.

Manufacturing: Think about everything that we own. Most of it probably came from a factory, which pollutes the air and water, as well as uses too much energy and water. To gain from these factories, something has to be sacrificed, and that is the preservation of the natural world.

Forestry: Clear cutting is a common practice, when it comes to logging. But it can really destroy the environment. These trees are homes and habitats to vast variety of wildlife, and removing these trees also cause a loss of nutrient-rich topsoil. The sad part is that clear-cutting removes the potential for the habitat to reestablish after the trees are logged. It is also hard for the soil to regenerate, and the forest may take decades to centuries to grow again.

Fishing: Canada and the fishing industry go hand in hand, because we are located right beside two great bodies of water. But what's to fish, when they are all gone? Four types of Canadian fish have become extinct, There are 53 species at risk for extinction. Based on 1991 statistics, the marine catch of Quebec was 83 000 tonnes! Aquaculture is a human activity that is taking an effect on the biodiversity of fish.

Humans are affecting biodiversity, because we are overpopulated, which leads to over-consuming, which leads to more industrial activity and development. It's a continuous cycle, that puts a greater threat on biodiversity each time. There simply is not enough resources on the earth to sustain us, because there is really no infinite amount. The more we strive to attain resources, the greater the impact on the environment. Of course the things mentioned above only seem to stress how we pollute the world and such, but if you think deeper, you can picture the animals that will die off or those plants and animals that will have to suffer or adapt to a new way of life. The more there are of us, the more we end up invading the habitats of wildlife.

I love going to up to my friend's cottage at Golden Lake, which is about 4 hours from Toronto. (Pictures above!) There are a set of houses built around a part of the lake, which sort of becomes their own semi-private lake. I love the serenity of the natural world, being surrounded by real fresh air, being able to see the stars, and hear the sounds of animals in their natural habitat. This is what our lives should be like... to enjoy the sounds of nature instead of the noise of our iPods. Our lifestyles are killing biodiversity, foreshadowing our own demise. At this cottage, I saw the cutest frog going from the lake back into the woods. It stopped in its tracks after I saw it and stared at me. It made me think about unit 1 of Gr. 10 science, where we learned about frogs and how we were basically ruining their lives. They live in forests, but also need to go to swamps to lay eggs and procreate. The creation of roads, the destruction of forests, and the clearing of small swamps to make room for big city dreams, all expose these frogs to their predators. And there I was, standing in front of it, a potential predator. I was in its territory, yet it was afraid of me. When we learn that raccoons are in our neighbourhood or there are random rabbits in our yards, our thought is to make them go away. But really, who are we to get them off "our" property, when we invaded their territory first?

So to answer the question, "are we stewards?"... The answer is yes. Are we GOOD stewards? Then, the answer is no. Of course, there are those exceptions out there that do good things for the environment, and those instances where the human race have shown they can also create positive effects. Then, there some people in the human race who have done nothing to harm the environment, because they aren't advance enough to live in houses that waste electricity or have animals to hunt, etc. Sure, they don't live the lifestyle we do, but the blood from the destruction of this world is on our hands.

We bite off more than we can chew. No matter what kind of action we attempt to take, it seems as though we can move one step forward, but we end up taking two steps back. We are part of the web of life. We know it, we really do. But knowing is not enough, because it seems as though the symptoms of this diminishing web is not apparent enough. Why is the sun so hot, that it has become the norm for moles to appear on our skin ? Why is the weather out of whack? Why are animals disappearing? Why why why? Is it not obvious enough? Must something HUGE and catastrophic occur before we can take some REAL action? Turning off lights whenever you can, recycling, taking the bus, riding your bike...whatever you are doing-- it just isn't going to be good enough anymore, when we over-fish, cut down trees, burn fossil fuels...

We can think that our ancestors can be our scapegoats, because they were the ones who started the industrial revolution and the practices that we use today. It's their fault isn't it? The difference between them and us, is that they didn't know they were harming the natural world. They thought they were making life easier for us so that lives would be better from generation to generation. We know what's happening. We know that our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and on and on will have to suffer. We know that things have to be different. I'm not pointing any fingers, because I just might be more guilty than you. But for real, things need to change and they need to start changing now, if there's any shot to reverse what we put our environment, our home, through, just to satisfy our needs. Maybe it's time for us to sacrifice our needs for the earth, considering how much we have made it suffer. Maybe it's time to love the world in another way.

(This picture kind of makes me feel sad. The environment has suffered so much due to our 'invasiveness'.)

Works Cited

Dougherty, J. (2000-2001). Human Population Impacts on Biodiversity. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from Biodiversity and Human Health: .

Redpath Museum. (n.d.). Impacts on Biodiversity. Retrieved September 30, 2009, from Quebec Biodiversity Website: .