(no subject)
Got back last night from my first field trip. the thing ate up my whole weekend, i mean i got back at 8pm on a sunday night. and i have another one next weekend... and this next one isnt even compulsory!
On the brighter side of things it did put me in a situation where i was forced to socialise with everyone and anyone, and heck i even played hacky-sack (damn, i knew i should have brought a book, nothing spells sociable like a history tome!) and now my leg has been aching like i sprained something for 2 days! this either means that hacky-sack is some wierd form of hippy-yoga, or that i need more excersize... wonder which!
My Conservation Biology course is really an eye-opener. the first lecture on acutal examinable material was about the benefits of Biodiverstiy and the like. i went into the course expecting, among other things, to be given the scientific, persuadearific reason that we should all be shitting our pants and running around like headless chickens over loss of biodiversity, habitat loss and extinctions etc... i mean these ARE scientists, and they seem to think its bad... sooo there must be some kind of united reason why biodiversity is good. There is; and it goes like this: "We *could* argue that biodiversity is increadibly important because its an effective gene pool to solve our current and future problems and ailments, and that it often can bring in a decent amount of tourist money and crap like that, but really we believe that biodiversity has an intrinsic value." yep. you heard it, the lecturer repeated it several times over the course of the lecture. "an intrinsic value." Sure, this is what i believe, but im a sap, softy and a care-bear in most regards, but seriously, no wonder people dont listen to ecologists and conservationists, we study and practice, for all intents and purposes, the sentimental science. asking anyone who isnt a big fan of sacrificing quality-of-life, or profits to do so, and respect biodiversity is akin to joe in accounting the rest of the office to hop every 10th step, you know, as a personal favor to him, because he believes that it has intrinsic value... and it might raise moral or something like that.
on the upside this means that noone is going to start listening to Greenpeace anytime soon. and you know what the only outcome of that is! Ecoterrorism! yes i predict that in 10 years Greenpeace will have its own militant arm, and will be striking against bastions of industialism everywhere.
On the brighter side of things it did put me in a situation where i was forced to socialise with everyone and anyone, and heck i even played hacky-sack (damn, i knew i should have brought a book, nothing spells sociable like a history tome!) and now my leg has been aching like i sprained something for 2 days! this either means that hacky-sack is some wierd form of hippy-yoga, or that i need more excersize... wonder which!
My Conservation Biology course is really an eye-opener. the first lecture on acutal examinable material was about the benefits of Biodiverstiy and the like. i went into the course expecting, among other things, to be given the scientific, persuadearific reason that we should all be shitting our pants and running around like headless chickens over loss of biodiversity, habitat loss and extinctions etc... i mean these ARE scientists, and they seem to think its bad... sooo there must be some kind of united reason why biodiversity is good. There is; and it goes like this: "We *could* argue that biodiversity is increadibly important because its an effective gene pool to solve our current and future problems and ailments, and that it often can bring in a decent amount of tourist money and crap like that, but really we believe that biodiversity has an intrinsic value." yep. you heard it, the lecturer repeated it several times over the course of the lecture. "an intrinsic value." Sure, this is what i believe, but im a sap, softy and a care-bear in most regards, but seriously, no wonder people dont listen to ecologists and conservationists, we study and practice, for all intents and purposes, the sentimental science. asking anyone who isnt a big fan of sacrificing quality-of-life, or profits to do so, and respect biodiversity is akin to joe in accounting the rest of the office to hop every 10th step, you know, as a personal favor to him, because he believes that it has intrinsic value... and it might raise moral or something like that.
on the upside this means that noone is going to start listening to Greenpeace anytime soon. and you know what the only outcome of that is! Ecoterrorism! yes i predict that in 10 years Greenpeace will have its own militant arm, and will be striking against bastions of industialism everywhere.