All posts by kmishra

Footprint

Let’s all be lacto-vegetarian!

1 Comment

My original footprint is 4.1 planets and 18.2 acres. Compared to the United States, the number of planets needed to sustain my type of lifestyle is way below the average for the Unites States, but the acres of land needed to sustain my lifestyle if much higher than average. This is probably because I don’t consume any meat products at all, but I do travel by bus, car, and train a lot. Each day’s commute to Brooklyn College is more than 50 miles, so that really is a huge chunk of my energy/land usage.

When I maximized three different parameters, the number of planets and acres of land needed to sustain my hypothetical lifestyle drastically increased. For the first parameter, I increased my meat consumption from none to the maximum, which was daily, I believe. This caused both the planets and acres needed to increase, from 4.1 to 6.5 and from 18.2 to 28.8. This was truly shocking to me and actually quite comforting, knowing that my current lifestyle’s carbon footprint is way less than someone who does eat meat everyday. Its even more of an incentive to sustain my lacto-vegetarian lifestyle and continue living the life I am.

The second parameter that I maximized was the use of personal transportation. This caused my carbon footprint to increase to a whopping 7.1 planets and 31.7 acres of land. This was the biggest increase and it is expected, because cars release so much carbon dioxide and other pollutants. Increasing my personal car use would be very harmful to the environment, and in a way it is also comforting for me to think how much of a less impacts I am making on the environment by using public transportation rather than my own car.

The last parameter I maximized was energy usage. The number of planets and acres needed for me to sustain that lifestyle increased to 6 and 26.7, respectively. This was quite interesting, because it also brought me content to think that all that I do to save energy really does make an impact. I always make sure to turn off all the lights in our house before we leave or go to sleep. I also use only one room’s light at a time, and never leave electric decorations on all night or at all day. The heat is also left on the minimum that I need for that day, around 60 or 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Though these are simple things, in the long run, they do help out. Overall, here is the comparison of all four parameters and by looking at this, it is quite obvious that my current lifestyle is the most sustainable of the four.

Ecological footprint

Changes that I could probably make to my lifestyle would be to buy more local, organic goods, reduce the wasteful purchase of packaged goods, and take more public transportation. However, these aren’t that ideal because I live in a family setting. It is very difficult to follow a non-wasteful lifecycle when one person wants this packaged food, that new type of cereal, and so on. Also, I do have a recyclables compartment in my house, but I wish to make it even more efficient and inclusive. I have three cans for paper, plastic and cans, but I want to make a new compartment for compost or organic goods. In addition to those changes, I want to try and convince my parents to install solar panels on our house. Not only will it help us on electricity, but also it will harness renewable energy, which I believe more people and corporations should make use of. These are just a few examples of what I could do on an individual level to help reduce my carbon footprint.

I believe, that whatever changes I would make to my lifestyle to make it more sustainable would only be to lift the burden of ecological sin from my conscience. Other than that, it is really too small of an impact to help save the planet or stop global warming. There needs to be a global movement to get corporations and other big producers of CO2 and other harmful pollutants to reduce their carbon footprints. It is them that play a major part in what wastes get put out into the atmosphere and it is only them who can help reduce the global carbon footprint.

AMNH

The Spectrum of Life and The Resource Center

1 Comment

Visiting the American Museum of Natural History’s Hall of Biodiversity was a very exciting and insightful experience. Generally, when I visit the museum, I am simply a spectator, but during this visit I had the unique opportunity to be both a spectator and an exhibit surveyor. This activity showed me how people react to different exhibits and what techniques were especially effective or ineffective for educating the public about biodiversity, while surveying the exhibits named The Spectrum of Life and The Resource Center

The Spectrum of Life was a truly massive and impressive exhibit. It travels through the evolutionary history of the various kingdoms that inhabit planet Earth. From fungi, to plants, to mammals, there are models of all these species and how they function and their role in the environment. Along with models, there are videos continuously playing of real life examples of species, like worms or cartilaginous fish. Moreover, there is an interactive computer screen that takes visitors through the various names, pictures, and functions of these species. While going through the exhibit myself, I was truly amazed by how many models of mammals and insects were tacked up on the walls. However, I did not realize the computer screens were interactive until I saw someone else using them. While observing others in the exhibit, I witnessed a total of around 60 people travel to The Spectrum of Life. The majority of these people were children around the age of six or seven, traveling in a class group, with their teachers as mentors. There were three separate classes, but generally each class exhibited the same behaviors towards the exhibit. Since they were younger kids, they enjoyed watching the continuous videos and looking at all the models on the wall. Their general reactions were of amazement at all the different species that they had most likely never seen before. Some kids saw the giant scorpions and spiders and uttered phrases of disgust like “Ew!” or “Gross!” Teachers were explaining to the children whatever they asked, in a simplified manner. For example, one child asked about what a fungus was and the teacher went on to explain it is a sort of plant. The children didn’t really go through the interactive video, because it was created more for people of greater age. The classes generally stayed in the exhibit for about five minutes, before moving onto the ocean life exhibits. As for improving this exhibit, it could be slightly more user friendly. First off, the computer screens aren’t really interesting or intuitive. It would be more interesting if separate buttons were added next to each species group to provide some quick facts and information. The models were aesthetically pleasing, but small facts about them would also be beneficial. The entire exhibit is really geared towards older people who have either studied biology or those who are interested in learning more. Overall, it is a great exhibit and is really informative, but could definitely be improved in the ways mentioned above.

The Resource Center was also a very intriguing exhibit, but it wasn’t as populated as The Spectrum of Life. This entire section was about how nature provides valuable resources for humans and we should protect. There were sections dedicated to specific laws dealing with conservation and how certain human interactions can cause harm to the environment. Such interactions included nonnative/invasive species introduction, depletion of resources, and caused species to become endangered. However, there were also video segments about species, like various birds, are adapting to human caused disasters, such as the disastrous Chernobyl accident. The majority of the exhibit was full of posters and boards with maps, informative paragraphs, and some pictures on them. There were interactive videos, which were very interesting, considering the fact that they were real life examples. The entire exhibit was very well lit, in comparison to a lot of the other places in the hall, which provided for a better reading space. As for the number of people in the exhibit, it was as popular as the previous exhibit, only achieving a maximum of 20 people during the observation time span. The visitors were teenagers, around high school age, and were taking notes while going through the exhibit. They were probably researching resource conservation and needed more information about the topic and came to learn more about the topic. The people were going through all parts of the exhibit and watching all videos and reading most, if not all, of the information. They were there for the entire time that I was observing. All the information in this exhibit is very informative, but once again, it is aimed for a higher audience. It could be improved by making it more interactive and lively by placing sounds of various species or models of those species/resources they are talking about. Though the exhibit is generally geared towards older people, it still conveys a strong message about biodiversity and resource conservation.

The Hall of Biodiversity is a fine attraction and is very thoughtfully constructed, though it could be made even better. Some parts of the hall had very dim lighting, which made it very difficult to see the exhibit or see the descriptions of the exhibit. I understand it is done to simulate the environment being discussed, but a little more lighting would greatly improve the hall. Moreover, the hall contains a massive amount of information in word form, but not as many interactive parts. The hall could be greatly improved if sounds of creatures or more videos were included. For example, many people were attracted to The Spectrum of Life exhibit because it had an interesting video. That’s why, if small clips were placed near each exhibit, it would make the exhibit more popular. Also, sounds of birds or tigers would be very engaging and would appeal more to the younger audience. I truly enjoyed the Hall of Biodiversity, but with the preceding suggested improvements, it could be just as enjoyable to all age groups.

What is Science?

GMOs are natural?

1 Comment
Is it possible for genetically modified organisms to appear naturally? It appears so, according to the Science Daily article entitled “Spontaneous GMOs in nature: Researchers show how a genetically modified plant can come about.” A study conducted at Lund University in Sweden shows that horizontal gene transfer has occurred between two species of plant: the Festuca ovina and the Poa palustris. DNA analysis has showed that a small part of the Poa palustris’ chromosome was transferred into the DNA of the Festuca ovina. Specifically, the gene was for an enzyme named PGIC, which is specific to the Poa palustris plant. The method of gene transfer is suggested to be from a parasite or pathogen, like a virus. The researchers are certain that the gene was definitely a result of a transfer because the two species of plant are not viable for reproduction. The way in which this gene jump occurred is unclear, though researchers assume that a sap-sucking insect may have assisted the pathogen/parasite from first plant to the next.
The researchers and authors of this article seem to have some bias towards the debate concerning GMOs. The researcher is explicitly quoted about the fact that GMOs may spread to the natural world is a very weak and unimpressive argument. This shows that he is biased towards the side where GMOs are completely safe and very beneficial and as this research suggests, natural. In reality, this research was only done a few years ago and so, it is not too clear whether GMOs are natural or not. Imposing this point upon the reader doesn’t give much room for debate, since it is simply stated, with no counter argument for it. The article only makes use of one research study from a Swedish university. This is geared towards one side of the controversial GMO debate, unlike other articles that may incorporate both sides of the argument.
This article focuses on the findings of one research study, concluding that GMOs can be found in the natural world. It suggests that GMOs are naturally occurring and have been like so for hundreds of thousands of years. However, it only makes use of one research publication, which makes it a very biased article. Some readers may not be so critical in analyzing the article and may find relief in the fact that this article states that GMOs are perfectly safe and natural. This is not the case because more research has to be done and the effects it has on us due to its consumption. This article proves on side of the GMO debate very well, but lacks an explanation or acknowledgement of the various other unproven debate points about these controversial food items.
Link for the article:
 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101104083102.html
Bioblitz

A Scavenger Hunt…for Lichen!

Leave a comment

Opening the email about Bioblitz really put in a crummy mood that day; finding out that I would have to take 8 precious hours out of my Sunday just to travel to the New York Botanical Garden and go “survey wildlife” was not the best news I could get, especially since I already had so much coursework piling up. However, as it was a required common event, I reluctantly cleared my schedule for what I didn’t expect to be such a pleasant experience.

I had originally chosen to survey Fish, since they were creatures I could physically see move around and maybe get to touch. I am a big animal lover and I was extremely disappointed when I was placed in the Lichen group at the last minute. I didn’t even know what a lichen was! Luckily, the lichen scientists were super friendly and were open to answering all of our questions.

Jessica and Clay had to be the only people I had ever seen who were super excited about lichens. They were always enthusiastic about helping us learn about them and were really adamant when trying to find specimens. They explained what a lichen was in a really thorough way and so now, I can never forget it. Lichens are actually two organisms living together symbiotically: fungi and algae. The alga uses photosynthesis to make food for the fungus while the fungus provides a wet, damp environment for the alga to live on. That way, lichens can grow anywhere, from trees to rocks to fences and anywhere else the lichen may consider habitable. We found lichens throughout the forest in the NYBG, on trees, on large rocks, small rocks, on fences and beyond. Searching for the lichens was also a really fun experience. It was sort of like a scavenger hunt to find all the lichen species in the forest. Though we weren’t excited to be lichen searching in the beginning, by the end of the event, we were all dismayed that the experience was coming to an end. Our amazingly cheerful scientists really helped us to experience a whole new side to science that I didn’t think existed.

The stereotypical view of a scientist’s job is that they sit in a lab and mix chemicals or examine specimens. However, Clay and Jessica have a very different scientific job because they do field research. Their job is actually very exciting because they never know if they will ever find a new species or a variation of an existing species. It’s like a real life scavenger hunt and I was truly appreciative to be able to join them in their jobs for a few hours. Furthermore, learning that there was so much biodiversity in a small place was truly amazing. Besides our lichen findings, we found exotic species like a special mushroom, that some people use in other countries for medicinal purposes.

            I feel like I am more appreciative of nature after this session studying the native species of New York City this past Sunday at Bioblitz. It makes me less fearful of the insects or nature around me because they, like us, are part of this Earth and we should appreciate. I am less hesitant to go into the park near the forest because of this experience. I would really like to thank Clay and Jessica for helping me appreciate their line of work and the nature around.