How on Earth Can We Save the Rainforest?

Tropical rainforests are found all across the world just below the Equator belt. Almost half of the remaining tropical rainforest is to be found in South America. One out of four ingredients in our medicine is from rainforest plants. 80% of flowers in the Australian rainforest cannot be found anywhere else. The rainforests of central Africa are home to more than 8,000 different species of plants. These amazing places cover only 6% of the world's surface but they contain over half of the world's animal and plant species. 

A rainforest can be described as a tall, dense jungle.  The reason it is called a "rain" forest is because of the high amount of rainfall it gets per year.  The climate of a rain forest is very hot and humid so the animals and plants that exist there must learn to adapt to this climate. 

Today tropical rainforests are disappearing from the face of the globe at a very quick rate. An area of a rainforest the size of a football field is being destroyed each second. Even though international concern is finally growing, rainforests continue to be destroyed faster than 80,000 acres a day. World rainforest cover now stands at around 2.5 million square miles, an area about the size of the United States of America or Australia and it represents around 6% of the world's land surface. A lot of this area has been influenced by human activities and no longer has “full biodiversity”. 

But why are the trees disappearing? They are being destroyed by human activities, both ignorantly and also sometimes purposefully. In the past 50 years much of the rainforest in Africa and Asia has been destroyed. Large areas of rainforest are being cut down, often in order to remove just a few logs, and rainforest is being destroyed at double the rate of all previous estimates. Unfortunately this means that there is a very high rate of extinction, as the wildlife depending on the forest dies with it.

One example of this is cattle ranching. Lots more people are beginning to eat beef in large quantities, so more cattle have to be bred to meet the demand. However, what many people do not realize is that cattle are one of the worst animals to breed. They create lots of methane in the atmosphere and they ruin the land after a few years by continually going over it with their heavy weights, puling up the grass by the roots when they eat.

In damp moist areas like the UK and northern Europe, this doesn’t matter. However, cattle ranching in hot tropical places like the Amazon rainforest, there are no trees to catch the rain when it falls onto the land where the cattle are being farmed. Why are there no trees? Because they have been cut away to make room for cattle and their ranchers.

Whenever it is not raining here, it is hot, and the wet mud dries and becomes hard and difficult. Even grass will no longer be able to grow in the soil. The soil is not protected and is being dissolved by rain so that it becomes just dirty brown puddles, and there is simply no way for new growth to occur, for the earth to renew itself. Eventually, in this manner, and many more besides there will be no forest left and no space to grow it back on.

Of course, I am talking of only one of many many reasons why the rainforest is disappearing. Some other examples include the burning of the forests, mining oil and natural gas, and logging.

The solution to this problem must be based on what is possible, and depends on developing a new conservation policy built on the principle of “sustainable use and development of rainforests”. Efforts to bring back ruined forests along with the launch of protected areas are crucial in securing rainforests for the long-term benefits they can provide us.

Charities like “Rainforest Concern” have specific projects to help the conservation and protection of rainforests. One of the projects that this particular charity has is called; “The Choco-Andean Corridor Project” in Ecuador. The objective is to create “habitat connectivity” to help species survival by linking the last unprotected forests between the Maquipucuna, Mindo y Pululahua reserves to the Cotacachi Cayapas Ecological Reserve and going north to the Awa Reserve in the province of Esmeraldas. They have been working on this project since 1993. That’s over 10 years!

What can we do to help? We can start by trying not to buy anything grown in rainforest regions, and to not buy furniture made from tropical wood, such as mahogany. However, staying in the UK, there isn’t a lot that we can do, other than helping to sponsor charities and giving donations to help them out.

Some people do not realise how important the Tropical Rainforest is to everyone on the planet. For a start, it helps to regulate our planet; turning our waste carbon dioxide into oxygen again for us to use. They absorb the carbon dioxide that we exhale, and provide the oxygen we need to breathe. When rainforest trees are burnt they release that carbon dioxide, which pollutes the atmosphere and contributes to global warming. Deforestation is in fact considered the second major driver of climate change, responsible for 18-25% of global annual carbon dioxide emissions!

They also act like a sponge for the world’s water, soaking it up from the soil and releasing it back into the atmosphere. In fact, it is commonly believed that the Amazonian rainforests alone store more than half of the planet’s rainwater! Without rainforests continually recycling huge quantities of water, feeding the rivers, lakes and irrigation systems, droughts would become more common, potentially leading to widespread famine and disease.

So, tropical rainforests are vital to our planet, and to us. They are even often nicknamed “The lungs of Mother Earth”. We have to do our best to help save them by supporting the charities who try everyday to keep the rainforests in check. We should also cut down on imports from rainforests and keep an eye on where our oil, food and furniture come from. Hopefully, one day, we can save the rainforests and, because of that, save the planet as well. 

Which is More Important: Endangered Animals or Endangered Languages?

Both animals and languages are at risk of extinction equally. However, no one really asks the question whether which is more important. They just do not seem to relate to each other in any way. Hopefully in the following minutes I can inform you on how these types of extinction relate to one another, and give you my own opinions on why one is more important than the other.

  

Shouldn't we strive to preserve both equally? In a perfect world: yes. Extinction usually occurs as a result of intolerance against the native language or species. Even the British Empire itself grew to be successful due to their intolerance of the native language of the invaded country; often allowing only English to be spoken and taught. Most languages cannot be preserved for a lack of time or finance; saving a language takes expensive amounts of both of these. On the other hand however, language is the medium of communication between humans, even sign language. Language is necessary among humans to prevent conflict and to develop themselves. There are hundreds of endangered languages which should be preserved. Here are some examples: 

·       Helambu Sherpa. This is believed to be extinct since no native 

     speakers exist. It originated on Nepal.

·        Squamish. This is spoken by Native Americans

    of the Suquamish Nation, and is sourced from

    British Columbia, in Canada. However, less

    than twenty native speakers remain in this nation.

·   Awjila. This was traced back to the Oasis of Awjila in Libya wherein

    the 2,000 native speakers live.

In addition there are also many thousands of endangered and extinct animals which we have to fight for. Some unusual examples include:

·     The Cassowary bird. This bright, blue bird is closely related to the Emu, but 

     is incredibly close to extinction.

·     The Tazmanian Tiger. Last known of in 1937, when the last one died

     on the 17^th of September, then dubbed the day of Endangered Species.

·      Lesser Bilby. The smaller breed died out in the 1960’s, while the Greater 

    Bilby is critically endangered.

More emphasis is placed on endangered animals but why is this? What is so gripping about animals that languages just don’t have? Well, for a start, humans themselves are not endangered, and so culture doesn’t seem so important in this ever changing world. When commercials request aid, they often use cute photos of animals like Pandas, Tree Kangaroos, Snow Leopards and most commonly Polar Bears. Language cannot be shown as cute in pleas for help in the same way, and so cannot attract our attention as easily. 

We are also encouraged to preserve wild life because of our dependence on other species for our own survival. When a language becomes extinct, it does not affect mankind in the same way. Moreover, it does not affect all of mankind, only a minority of the population. Many people are of the opinion that language is language. As long as everyone can communicate, who cares about different dialects and idiolects? They argue that it would be easier to speak just one language throughout the world, to globalize and prevent destructive language barriers. To these people, the preservation of language is considered a waste of money, paper, ink and time.

Is extinction permanent? Apparently not. Extinction is dangerous, careless and often sad. Indeed every 14 days a language dies. By 2100, approximately half of the 7,000 languages spoken in the world today will disappear, according to the National Geographic. In Australia before colonization there were around 250 indigenous languages, while after colonization there are only 20 constantly used languages. The statistics are similarly depressing for animals. The rate of extinction in mammals has increased up to 120% in 2005 since the 1600s, according to research by UCR. Nearly 20,000 animals are considered critically endangered in the world today and three new, dying species are discovered every week.

Despite this, sometimes success stories emerge through perseverance. For example the Muwekma Ohlome tribe of California has revitalized their moribund language Chochenyo, last spoken in the 1930s. As of 2009, the tribe was able to teach their students and carry out fluent conversations in Chochenyo. Furthermore, the Woylie, one of the smallest marsupials in the world was reintroduced onto small, predator-free islands following a decline in their primary hunters, foxes. 

In my opinion, we should try to make more effort to revitalize languages. If we’re willing to spend millions on saving endangered insects like the 12 species of Cape Stag Beetle currently being preserved, surely we can afford to save a few interesting and culturally significant languages such as Squamish. I found an article which said that “When a language dies a specific understanding of the world and a culture formed over centuries dies with it.” Each language has a different influence on society, as well as on the syntactic structure of the brain. The study of neurological patterns gives valuable insight into complex neuro-linguistic conditions, which could lead to a greater understanding of strokes and dyslexia, perhaps even providing a cure in the future.

Language is a main repository of human development and should be preserved as such. Language is one of the things that made us the way we are today; if we keep stuffed extinct animals in Natural History Museums, why shouldn’t we hold onto languages as well? Language also represents identity for many minority tribes and races of the world, and gives each a unique inner-connection with them-selves. Finally I believe that it is more inclusive to have a polychromatic world of linguistic diversity than to have a monochromatic world of dullness. 

I believe that language should be placed at a higher importance than animals because we live in an anthropocentric and secular world wherein we only care for ourselves. We ruin the world with our development and globalization, but even if that weren’t to happen, the animal cycle would still lead to extinction for many animals, such as the Dodos in the Pleistocene epoch. Language represents us in a way that animals do not, and I believe that as many as possible should be saved from extinction. 

Is God Responsible for Everything that Happens in the Universe?

Almost all faiths are founded on the belief that the universe was created by a deity in one form of another, although it remains to be determined therefore whether He is responsible for everything which happens in the Universe. In this article I will focus solely on the Judeo-Christian concept of God as creator as this is the faith I am most familiar with, being brought up Catholic and sent to a Catholic boarding school. Although many people of all different faiths believe that certain events in the universe are fated, including humanity, I will not talk of that which I am unsure of, and do not want to offend people of serious religious faith.

In the book of Genesis, there are two accounts of the creation of the world. The first describes the seven days in which Elojhim created the world ‘ex nihilo’ from nothing. This powerful and deist depiction of God as a potent, creating force is entirely detached from the loving and compassionate depiction, Yahweh, who walked on Earth and spoke with man. The personified God who had a relationship with man shows a more anthropocentric view of creation than the Elojhim account. This created the idea that God as Yahweh created us for a purpose, since we were reportedly created ‘imago Dei’ in the image of God. Although both of these accounts are of the original Hebrew Scriptures, they portray very different images of God. In fact many believe that the Elojhim account, while first in the book of Genesis, was written at least 500 years after the Yahweh account when a Jew visited Arabia and took the story from their existing idea of an all-powerful deity. However the one similarity between the two tales is that both were creators, creating the Earth and animals ‘ex nihilo’.

Similarly in Christian Scripture, in John’s gospel, Jesus was described as ‘the word’ or ‘logos’ used in the context, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was God, and the word was with God.” This suggests that in the view of Christianity, descended from Judaism, God created everything within the universe, in the form of Elojhim perhaps. However John took this view a step further, using this to portray Jesus as the interface between man and Elojhim, explaining Jesus as comparable to Yahweh (though not as paternalistic), and joining the two genesis stories to form one, strong legend. The Christian faith continues to call God the creator today even outside of the Scriptures, often through prayers and teachings. For example in the Apostle’s creed, Christians declare that they “believe in one, true God, Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth”. This assertion shows how Christians believe that God created the universe as an all-powerful and all-mighty force.

The reason for this concept of God as creator is that humans enjoy having a certain order and structure to their lives without a great sense of mystery. Although it is impossible to answer the many incomprehensible questions of the universe, different religions such as Judaism and Christianity envision a great creator to explain these questions. The linked similarities between Elojhim and Yahweh give a paternalistic and dominant view of the creator. This shows that God works with motive to give humans purpose. Because he is seen as the creator of the universe, many believe him also to continue to sustain the universe, thereby being responsible for the universe and everything within it.

I argue that God would not be responsible for everything that happens in the universe. For a start, it is of popular view that we as mankind have total free will, and therefore this would not be true if God was still responsible for us. Some may declare that even if God does not continue to sustain us in the world today, he still holds responsibility for us because we exist from him.  Therefore all things in the world have to be his fault, his problem. A popular extension of this view is Eternal Law, the position that all events in the universe were predetermined and we have no free will at all. The thing I find most troubling with this position is that it is a Christian view, even though it completely contradicts the Christian teaching of Man’s free will. I find it hard to believe that any rational Creator God would purposefully predestine such destruction as wars and famine having created us with such detail and accuracy. I also find it hard to believe that a God who is said to love everyone equally might set up the rape and savage murder of innocent young people through the actions of one man or woman. I feel that what we do in our lives is of our own choosing and that no higher being is responsible for our activities.

Hebrew Scriptures suggest that God was very powerful and also benevolent towards his ‘chosen people’.  In the book of Exodus, it is written “The lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness.” In addition, in the Christian gospel of St John it reads that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son” for the salvation of mankind. One key question in religious philosophy concerns the relationship between God and goodness. The Euthyphro dilemma is the problem; Does God create moral standards that he issues as commands, or does he command that which he already knows as good? Judaism would choose the first option, while Plato would say that good is already there. This dilemma is difficult to resolve, since religious believers tend to use God’s commands as a point of reference when deciding what is good, but are aware that sometimes their relationship with God might call on them to do something that they know rationally would be considered wrong. Take for example the story of Abraham. God called him to kill his son Isaac on a mountaintop to prove his faith, and Abraham conceded to do so, despite the immoral face of the action. The goodness of God therefore cannot be measured by human standards of goodness. They are set apart in a way which we cannot comprehend.

Many people believe that God is very powerful, often describing him as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, especially Christians. However Hebrew beliefs do not include the all ‘omni’ part of the phrase, believing God to be only very powerful, very knowing and very kind. They had good reason for this. When you talk of God as being almighty, as though there is nothing he cannot do, difficult questions begin to emerge. Through the position of Eternal Law, everything good or evil, happy or sad, it is all of God’s doing. The correct response to the events of the universe according to the Bible is Faith, even when things seem confusing or disturbing. Accept in faith and do not question. A good example of this unquestioning approach can be found in the story of Job. God allowed the devil to test Job to prove that he was a true follower of God. God placed Job into his enemy’s hands, and Satan was given two attempts to make Job suffer. He first lost his possessions and his children, and then a decline in health and his reputation in the community. Even though Job’s wife wanted him to curse God for the pain brought down on him, Job did not buckle. His reply was that “The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away. Blessed be the name of God.”

However this view is difficult for many to understand. It takes huge restraint and patience for someone to experience such loss and still have faith in God. Personally I do not comprehend the perseverance and strength of this faith as my own beliefs will not allow me to belief that compassion and reason in a deity would lead him to allow such acts from the devil towards one of his creations. How can the builder of the universe choose to allow someone’s world to collapse around them? And yet we are taught to believe that God creates intelligently and deliberately with a clear plan and purpose.

The Judeo-Christian ideal of a loving and compassionate God cannot exist simultaneously with the statement that God is responsible for everything that happens in the universe, rendering one or the other false. This is because if God wants to help us with starvation or flooding for example, but cannot help, then God is not omnipotent and cannot be held responsible. However if God does have the power to help but does not, as now with Superstorm Sandy, then he is malevolent. The typical Judeo-Christian response to this is that without suffering in the world, there can be no such thing as compassion. However this implies that God is willing to choose who suffers, showing that he favors those who appear to us not to be in need. This depicts God as a cruel and unfair deity, very unlike Judeo-Christian teachings. The two concepts, whether God is compassionate or responsible for everything in the universe, are not compatible. They cannot co-exist. If you believe in God as a Jewish or Christian believer then you must believe in the former if you are to believe the teachings of the scriptures and of the church.  

Therefore I conclude that in the context of a Judeo-Christian approach to God, God is not responsible for everything that happens in the universe. 

Is Television Positive or Negative for Our Society

In society, television can be positive or negative depending on the different views. I will consider various aspects of television, like watching for leisure, for news and generating jobs, in addition to becoming addicted, and trash TV ads. I am going to analyse the arguments for and against television.

Many people believe that television is a good way to relax because they can sit with friends and watch it together. My friends and I are hooked on an American series called 'Awkward', a romantic comedy, and I usually talk about it with them. It's a good way to share our interests. In addition, TV helps me stay in touch with world news. When I want to know something important or spend time, I usually turn on the small screen and watch the news. It is often very interesting and it is inevitable that you will learn something new. I think that the television industry is very special. This industry generates jobs and income for the economy. Television has existed for less than 150 years, so I think it's very inspiring that the industry is so large and includes many different people in the work. It is an industry through which thousands of people have jobs that otherwise would not be available.

Furthermore, there are many disadvantages of television also. First, there is too much junk on the TV. Every time I turn on the idiot box, the first thing I see is a contest to win money. Today it seems that all channels have only gossip programs and competitions stupid. It's a shame that art well done program dies. We live in a materialistic society that likes to watch TV is useless because an escape from their own lives. In addition, television ads are very annoying in my opinion. Interrupt programs too, especially in Spain and in America, because they are very long. Also affect children and parents have no control over the types of ads that their children watch.

There is another problem with television when parents do not block the channels that show inappropriate content. Increasingly, there are violent or sexual movies during the day, so if parents do not censor those channels and care for their children they may have their children becoming addicted to the wrong type of programs. Despite this, I do not think censoring is effective because people can search for what they want on the net. Parents would also have to censor certain websites to make this ban on television effective. Finally I think it is horrible that in England it is imperative that people have to buy the public channels if they want  to watch them.

My conclusion is that the key problem is today's society. The popularity of these programs depends on the viewers and it is shown that all programs inappropriate content or people who make bad decisions. I suggest that if people watch less TV in general and focus on socializing, then everyone would be healthier mentally and would watch less trash on the boob tube. I do not like television because it has a negative and addictive impact on society.

I originally wrote this in flawed Spanish for a practice essay, so I apologize for any typos which I have not corrected in English.