There are indeed many things that can be done to solve the problem of Environmental Degradation in Canada. In our lecture, there was a list provided and one included in the list is the removal of leaded fuels and replacing it unleaded gasoline. While I think the unleaded gasoline would indeed do better for people, I think there must be more studies on the possible effects of this change. While there are diverse ways on solving environmental issues, experts and the government should decide which ones are the best. In my opinion, simply replacing leaded gasoline is not a sound solution. The main reason for putting lead into gasoline is to improve the energy conversion efficiency. This means that leaded gasoline is burnt more efficiently than unleaded gasoline. This further means that leaded gasoline produces less CO and CO2. I therefore, think that both kinds of gasoline should be removed in the future as they both result to different adverse environmental effects. In my opinion, renewable energy would be the best solution – such as solar energy. Then again, there must be sufficient studies to investigate the use of this technology.
Reference:
Today I Found Out (2011). Why Lead used to be added to Gasoline. Retrieved from: <http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/11/why-lead-used-to-be-added-to-gasoline/>.
In Lecture 7, I learned that there are diverse environmental problems in Canada. Upon researching I realized that many countries are also face with such problems. Fortunately, there are also diverse solutions that are proposed. Nevertheless, I think that these solutions would only work if all stakeholders would participate, which is the guiding principle for sustainable development. Such stakeholders include the common people, the government, the academic institutions, etc. In the case of Canada, it is apparent the government does not have the political will to solve environmental concerns. In fact it is one of the major causes of environmental degradations. In such cases, I want to pose the question on how can we obtain a sustainable development when the very government that is supposed to be spearheading the realization of solutions is the one that causes more problem?
Reference:
Shah, A. (2014). Sustainable Development. Retrieved from: <http://www.globalissues.org/issue/367/sustainable-development>.
I completely agree with you with such observations about politics and the environment. Your observations are concrete proofs that if we really want environmental problems to be solved, we need not isolate them from politics. Politicians and the government will always have their role in solving such problems. Hence, we need to elect people whom we know to have the political will to go against giant companies that are polluting the environment. Unfortunately, such observations are not so rampantly seen on the mainstream media. Since we can be considered as stakeholders of bringing solutions to environmental problems, what suggestions can suggest that we must do in order to increase the awareness of the general populace about the role of politicians in bringing about such environmental problems? Is there something else we can do than discuss these things within the academic forum?
When do we say that religion is already harmful?
I am also a member of a religious denomination; hence, I value religion ad give it a proper place in my life. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that throughout human history, religion has been the major cause of death. The expansion of the Catholic Church and Islam, for example have caused the lives of numerous pagans and other believers of different faith. Hence, we must consider in sociology that while religion can "reinforce social solidarity"it can also cause the destruction of an entire society. Today we are confronted with terrorism, and the US and its allies argue that the terrorist use religion to back their atrocities. Therefore, how can we put religion to its proper place? Canada is now encouraging immigration from diverse kinds of people belonging to different religious denominations. How will the Canadian government assure peace and social unity in the mids of religious diversity? I think, this is the reason why the Canadian government is becoming more secular. It is only through a secular government that politicians can treat all religious denominations equally to avoid religious conflicts among the units of societies.
I am not a Marxist, but when it comes to Marxism's view of religion, I completely yield. If you try to review human history, it can be observed that religion has been the major cause of wars, violence, and killings. There is killing within and between religions. We cannot also deny that religion has good effects to societies. Hence, I think that we should not completely annihilate religion, but we must minimize its powers through legislations and secularization. While many argue that the United States is becoming more secular, statistics show otherwise. One statistics showed that the United States is number one in terms of population percentage that believes in angels. Another statistics shows that the education of the US is declining. Hence we can see that the US is actually becoming more religious and becoming less secular and educated. I think these trends are the real reasons why the US is becoming more divided.
Reference:
CBS News (2011). Poll: Nearly 8 in 10 Americans believe in Angels. Retrieved from: <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/>.
This is a very important observation about collective conscience. If there are indeed other things that could draw out collective conscience, then is it possible to do away with religion? There has been many posts for lecture 8 demonstrating how divisive religion can get. If, therefore, we could sponsor events that could draw collective conscience, can we use do so in order to build a stable nation? A nation or a world united by recurring events and not by religious promises that not observable neither verifiable. The lecture also mentioned that God is simply the society's experience of itself. Can we not, therefore, manipulate these experiences so that we could a better, more peaceful society?
The Good Side
There have been many studies showing the bad sides of a standardized curriculum. I for one have been affected by these studies that I became more conforming with non-standardized education. Nevertheless, upon going through Lecture 9, I realized that the world that I am longing for in the future is one that can be easily achieved with standardized education. According to the lecture, standardized education can help indoctrinate students to a common culture. In my opinion, a common culture will help build a united world. I am still not 100% convinced with this idea, tho, because I also love diversity and diversity breeds diverse kinds of ideas which make the entire human civilization progress. Hence, will standardized education promote diversity?
It appears that the number of pros and cons may vary for each individual. Hence, the efficiency or applicability of on-line education can be decided only by the individual who is deciding to take it. Also, such pros and cons are very important for providers of on-line education so as to improve their services. I also realized from the posts and the other comments that the efficiency of on-line education would be greatly affected by other industries aside from the education industry. For example, the telecommunication industry could help. They can improve their infrastructure, expand their reach, or create dedicated lines for on-line learning.
I was curious about the decline of the traditional families. In the lecture, secularism is one of the major reasons given. However, when I looked at the statistics, I saw that the non-traditional families (same sex marriage, cohabitation, etc.) comprise only less than 6% of the total number of families. The real concern is the disappearance of the families where the women stay at home while the husbands work outside to earn money. I think one of the main reasons for this is not secularism but the economy. If women can stay at home take care of their children, they would most likely do that. This is my observation from my own country and other Asian countries. The women are forced to work and leave their children because their husbands are not working enough; so, to blame secularism for the breakdown of the traditional families in, in my opinion, unfair. Secular education teaches us that personal child rearing is more advantageous to the child's development than leaving children to maids or helpers.
Reference:
Boundless (2016). The Decline of the Traditional Family. Retrieved from: <https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/family-12/recent-changes-in-family-structure-94/the-decline-of-the-traditional-family-533-3394/
COLLAPSE
If western history is reviewed, it can be argued that homosexuality has been accepted even in the ancient times. For example, the Romans practiced it. One of its emperors - Emperor Nero - is a gay and was open about his gayness. So to argue that the embrace of homosexuality is actually a modern concept is a little historically incorrect. Moreover, the observation that homosexuality is more likely to b embraced by modern, advanced societies is also arguable. If we look at some tribes like the Sambia Tribe and the Etoro people, we can conclude that they are primitive and they have been open to homosexuality for hundreds of years. My main point is that homosexuality is normal. It's prevalence has just been demonized, appeared to look new and absurd by some groups of people. Thanks to secularism, the truth about human nature is now being unfolded.
Reference:
Tripod (2016). The Sambia Tribe. Retrieved from: <http://lrivera0327.tripod.com/>.
