8812+Weekly+Activity+Assessments

toc =Weekly Assignment Activities=

Week 1
Title:

Environmental Politics and the Global Food Crisis Debate (Society and Environment)
Article: Reversing desertification, sustainable agriculture and designing better cropping systems in relation to management of soil systems and the politics: //A necessity for the modern person//

There seems to be an astronomical number of environmental issues that we as a nation are facing. The global population of 10 Billion that earth may need to support by 2100 suggests there is significant need to consider the way we feed ourselves. In particular what foods we choose to eat and how we grow the will come under more and more scrutiny. We will come face to face with the consequences of increased pressure placed on farm lands that will need to be capable of supporting growth of enough food crops to feed this inevitable growth.

In relation to Australia and WA this issue is of vast significance because much of the vacant land in our north is seen by governments and by foreign investors and entrepreneurs as a valuable asset. Potential farm land that it is hoped will provide food enough for all the hungry mouths. But how will we sustain it, what is sustainability and why is it important?

Desertification is the direct result of putting too much pressure on soil through many of the following, (i) fertilization, (ii) over intensification of farming practices, (iii) poor crop selection, (iv) increasing tax and (v) the most difficult to predict and controversial climate change and the weather in general. These issues all are related to the environment and can result in soil not being to sustain crop growth, which leads to the formation of deserts.

This is already happening in the Wheat Belt where 80 years ago soils that are very sandy and salty once supported native vegetation growth, but the trees were cut to plant wheat and breed sheep, and this lead to a rising salt level in the soil through the water table, making soil less fertile and baron in some areas. Unfortunately the soil needs the microbes to keep its balance (Soilquality.org). If the balance changes too much the result is a sandy salty acidic desert unable to sustain crop growth. The estimated cost to fix the problems associated in the wheat belt is a lot (>1 Billion dollars) to make it arable as it once was. No one has that much money and unfortunately governments do not support farmers much in relation to the prices they receive for their crops which also means that they try to get more from the soil by adding more throwing out the balance even further.

This is why the issue of desertification comes under economics, technology and politics and environment. Often farmers are unable to do anything despite their best intentions. Farmers need to add much phosphate and nitrogen to the soil (due to the soils low nutrient binding capabilities) which also changes the microbiological community structure and diversity of the soil. However if soil has a lot of phosphate in it, then it is not a requirement however fertiliser companies need to make a profit so they might exploit to sell it. Compounding the problems! There are many more Reference: issues related to desertification, but these are more related to the movement of people. Population growth and excess population leads to not only political issues of agriculture and desertification is also related to this as it creates refugees! For example environmental refugees, forced off their lands. Would we ever see farmers forced off their lands because they cannot work the soil? Yes!

Such is life.

Desertification and Sea-Level Rise: New Trends Causing Environmental Refugees in the Twenty First Century Kiyana AllenKayly Ober American University April 2008 []
 * Reference:**

Week 2
===Salinity in the wheatbelt as a direct result of unsustainable European farming practices, and the cultural implications that occurred to the indigenous population (a sustainable civilization of people):=== Firstly I would like to quote the following 3 revolutionary figures for consideration in relation to how history and farming in the wheat belt have come to be the way they are, how farming in the wheat belt occurs in relation to capitalism and consumerism and also socialism, and in relation to the Chinese revolution of farming and imperial china shifted to become the superpower it is today based on philosophic principles of Mao. 1.) “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.” Napoleon Bonaparte 2.) “Capitalist production, therefore, develops technology, and the combining together of various processes into a social whole, only by sapping the original sources of all wealth - the soil and the labourer.” Karl Marx

3.) “If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.” Mao Zedong Environmental capitalism: By far the most important question raised in the question about environmental issues that I would like to focus this argument on in relation to farming and the wheat belt and soil conservation is whether history is repeating itself in relation to humankind’s involvement with our environment (ancestor to ancestor). Why are people so stubborn to change? Given they can directly see the impact they have caused…  Are we making mistakes that will make living on planet earth unsuitable for human habitation? In my opinion the resounding answer is that sustainability (a popular theory for defining management of the environment) is just a big marketing, first world way of controlling the global population in relation to food (a capitalist stand), which involves movement of natural resources, which involves money, aid and arms through transfers and mechanisms e.g. the World Bank, the UN, the EU, WWF,Unicef etc They are all in to make money. Money makes the world go around. The word sustainability is derived from the Latin //sustinere// (//tenere//, to hold; //sus//, up). Dictionaries provide more than ten meanings for //sustain//, the main ones being to “maintain", "support", or "endure”. However, since the 1980s //sustainability// has been used more in the sense of human sustainability on planet Earth and this has resulted in the most widely quoted definition of sustainability as a part of the concept [|//sustainable development//], that of the [|Brundtland Commission] of the [|United Nations] on March 20, 1987: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The fire stick farming methods that was used by the indigenous Australian’s must be considered as the most sustainable of farming techniques ever as they were able to support a steady population of people for longer than any other case of human ancestors in the history of global civilization. “ However, as human populations have expanded their use of fire, their actions have come to dominate some ecosystems and change natural processes in ways that threaten the sustainability of some landscapes.” ( Pausas & Keeley, 2009). The assertion that sustainability and farming be considered mutually inclusive is principally flawed based solely on the assertion that humanity considers itself independent on all environmental influences. It is more of a buzz word for how we manage our influences, because humans are increasing in numbers, and at present cannot live without increasing in number, just like the capitalist principle of growth. We will eventually reach a maximum population that can survive on this planet regardless of the word or principle of sustainability in practice. What will happen then? In China they had revolution, in Russia they had Revolution. Food will always be needed based on projected population growth expected to get to 9 Billion by 2050. How we control resources will eventually determine, our outcomes as a global population. "There is a meat crisis," he said. "The world population will grow from six billion now to nine billion by 2050 and we know people are consuming more meat. Twenty years ago the average was 20kg, it is now 50kg, and will be 80kg in 20 years. If we continue like this we will need another Earth." Says Professor [|Arnold van Huis], an entomologist at Wageningen University in the Netherlands and the author of the UN policy paper on the eating of insects by the UN [|Food] and Agriculture Organisation (Carrington, 2010). In the wheatbelt there is on average 1-2 tonnes per/Ha of salt in the soil and water table such that if farming continues on the path that it is going now, it will not be able to continue. One argument against this is technology. Technology to control various cycles and control growth through genetic engineering, eg by growing tolerant drought, saline, pH plants and genetically mutating the genes in cows to make them be able to live off less water, or eat more toxic foods are just a few examples of technology being proposed by capitalist companies such as Monsanto and the like. But what as a society do we really need? Food, Water, Shelter, and the occasional copulation, that is all. Native aborigines were able to manage Australia for over 40 000 years with little change inherent. But within 200 years of European settlement, nearly all the Biodiversity and pristine environments are gone. Why? Greed

Environmental sustainability is a principle sets out guidelines but it is also a choice that individuals need to make every day as to whether people want to live in a particular way. At the end of the day, sustainability is nothing more than a principle and not really an achievable way of life. It is a Utopian idea not based in reality. Sure it makes people think about their impacts but what is being done to alleviate the issues are solutions with more problems. It is a wicked problem. If farming continues then we will just suffer more consequences, poorer soil, more erosion, more desertification and more acidification. This is just a result of the need to feed ourselves. Essentially humans are our own worst enemy; we cannot directly see the result of our actions initially because of our inability to predict the future outcomes of our actions. For example the farmers who cleared the land had no idea that clearing the land would raise the salt levels. Another fine example is the invention of the combustion engine. It was revolutionary but is now one of the main reasons global warming is occurring. Unless you are a fence sitter and don’t believe in global warming of course. Then you must have been born under a rock! Modeling and managing in my humble opinion helps us feel good about ourselves but does little to actually solve the problem which is US! I am not sure that by just choosing an issue and talking about, and writing policies for it, is going to solve it. This is because our influence on the environment is a manifestation of our own selves (our internal environment) that is intricately intertwined to the universe and we don’t understand this yet.

“True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us.”

Socrates

Juli G. Pausas, Jon E. Keeley <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">BioScience, Vol. 59, No. 7 (July/August 2009), pp. 593-601 <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">Published by: <span style="color: #265985; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">[|University of California Press] <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;"> on behalf of the <span style="color: #265985; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">[|American Institute of Biological Sciences] <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">Article DOI: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.7.10 <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 8pt;">Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/bio.2009.59.7.10 = = ** Insects could be the key to meeting food needs of growing global population ** [|**Share**] ** 1980 ** [|**Damian Carrington**] [|**The Observer**]**, Sunday 1 August 2010 **
 * <span style="color: #333300; font-family: Arial,sans-serif;">References: **
 * <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 9pt;">A Burning Story: The Role of Fire in the History of Life **
 * The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation is taking seriously the farming of creepy-crawlies as nutritious food **

The environment in the media
A global environmental problem that has been receiving much media attention in the past 30 years is Anthropogenic Climate Change. At first in the 70’s and 80’s more and more scientists became aware that climate change was caused by the emission of gas (primarily carbon dioxide). Over time these scientists have invented, developed and used many theoretical and practical tools such as ice core sampling or measuring sea levels to determine if fluctuations in global temperature were indeed caused by humans and have used computer simulation and programming models to that same effect. To this day the same same scientists continue to campaign about the dangers associated with climate change, the possibility that climate change could lead to a global biodiversity los in excess of 60% of all species by 2050 if nothing is done about climate change. Importantly the modeling data and the figures about biodiversity impacting climate change represent important motivational tools because in simple terms a globe with 60% less biodiversity would not be a very nice to live. Many things have been done at all scales in relation to climate change. The main international bodies are the UNFCCC and the IPCC. In terms of Policy and planning these advancements there are six emerging political, economic, societal and scientific scenarios that need consideration for addressing any future global threat of climate change and its manageability through the above proposed forceful mechanisms,
 * 1) Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change (UNFCCC, 2012)
 * 2) Enhanced action on managing risks of extreme events & disasters to advance climate change adaptation (IPCC, 2012)
 * 3) Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation (UNFCCC, 2012)
 * 4) Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology cooperation (UNFCCC, 2012)
 * 5) Enhanced action on capacity-building (UNFCCC, 2012)
 * 6) Further scientific modeling and estimation of global anthropogenic climate change sources in relation to the overall reduction targets agreed to by signatories to the Kyoto Protocol by 2020 and 2050 respectively (Hovi //et al//. 2010)

One of the major issues for inaction in the climate change debate arises from doubt over data validation. The plaintiff (not the defendant) must prove ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ based on a ‘balance of probability,’ that is a duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact, that they are responsible for the said ‘pollution’, decided in a court of law.

So in summary there are many international policies and ways to deal with climate change, however because it is a wicked problem (with no definite solution because so many countries unwilling to act) we are facing a biodiversity loss and many other issues. This has brought forward more recently in the media and in the public eye people are becoming more aware of the issues associated with climate change, but is it too little too late. I would argue yes. “Think before you fertilise”

“Save water not money”

“Salt is everywhere you can’t hide from it”

“Technology won’t solve the problem”

These three slogans are important as they would serve farmers in the wheat belt with some simple lessons that could help them to manage their land better.

Because it is established that farmers will not leave their land and seek business elsewhere, it is only inevitable that the land will continue to be degraded until it is useless, or if technology solves the problem. Unfortunately over time we have become more dependent on technology.

So in response to this simple fact, we need to understand that integrated management of soil is the only way forward, and this means sanctioning farmers who although have the final say of their soil treatment and management aspects it is in the best interests of humanity to integrate all the areas and aspects of humanity into the global distribution of food. And this means the soil management too.

taking Action
Individual Action: Silent Action The individual action of Emanuel E Kant, when he had a period of 10 years silence lead to the publication of [|//Critique of Pure Reason//] (// [|Kritik der reinen Vernunft] //) in 1787. Kant changed the framework within which philosophical inquiry is carried out. Very little philosophy is now carried out as an extension, or in the style of pre-Kantian philosophy. This shift consists in several closely related innovations that are axiomatic, in philosophy itself and in **__ social science and the humanities. __**
 * § Kant's "Copernican revolution", that placed the role of the human subject or knower at the center of inquiry into our knowledge, such that it is impossible to philosophize about things as they are independently of us or of how they are for us
 * § His invention of critical philosophy, that is of the notion of being able to discover and systematically explore possible inherent limits to our ability to know through philosophical reasoning
 * § His creation of the concept of "conditions of possibility", as in his notion of "the conditions of possible experience" – that is that things, knowledge, and forms of consciousness rest on prior conditions that make them possible, so that, to understand or to know them, we must first understand these conditions
 * § His theory that objective experience is actively constituted or constructed by the functioning of the human mind
 * § His notion of moral autonomy as central to humanity
 * § His assertion of the principle that human beings should be treated as ends rather than as means

I would also like to note that the silent protesting of the Dalai Lama, and Muhatma Ghandi (as I have been to the Ghandi Ashram) and have heard the Dalai Lama speak about human rights. Many individual actions are about human rights, which when people feel that they cannot speak out against their rights they take action. This is an interesting point because of W.A. reliance of China as a trading partner, yet our decision to not be more vigilant on questioning the government about human rights, because it might affect our national recourse capital index. Of course the obvious connection might be missed that environmental issues are not separate from cultural and environmental ones, however if this is the case then there needs to be questions asked about our political philosophy and our cultural heritage philosophical principles that allow such hedonistic attitudes to prevail over liberty and freedom and freedom of speech which is why I chose Kant. He is paramount to the social sciences which includes the environmental movement. Local/National action: The **Franklin Dam** or **Gordon-below-Franklin Dam** project was a proposed dam on the [|Gordon River] in [|Tasmania], [|Australia]. It was never constructed. The movement that led to the project's cancellation is one of most significant political platforms in Australian history. The dam was proposed for the purpose of generating [|hydroelectricity] which itself would be considered a sustainable source of electricity as it is renewable. It would have had a capacity of 180 [|m] [|egawatts]. However, the project was going to impact upon the environmentally significant and sensitive [|Franklin River] that joins into the Gordon. There followed the proposal of the proponent a large environmental campaign against the dam, because both areas in the proposed dams vicinity were [|World Heritage] listed. The campaign localised small individual action movements into a larger voice involving silent, non-violent protest however it was not until 1982 when the site became occupied by protesters, that larger widespread arrests created greater publicity that the dispute became a federal issue. This was aided by a campaign in the national print media, assisted by idealistic pictures of the area, which gave the movement a more global voice and this lead to the downfall of the government lead by [|Malcolm Fraser] at the [|1983 election]. The new government, under [|Bob Hawke], promised to stop the dam from being built and a legal battle between the federal government and [|Tasmanian] state government ensued, resulting in a landmark [|High Court] ruling in the federal government's favour.

National or global action: This is the most difficult issue to describe in relation taking global action as there has never been a global effort to achieve something that has not been at the detriment of another person in my opinion. An example would be World War 2. There was a one could argue global action against Germany and Japan by the Allied forces, however this was not a global action because firstly it did not involve all the parties of every individual person and nation working together on something as one movement. There was a victor and a loser, and unfortunately this is not the definition of global action in my opinion. One thing that might be considered to come close to global action would be in my opinion in establishing life on another planet. In the simplest definition we are all made of the same thing DNA and genes. To question this would be stupid in modern day science. Now consider that as a human race we are damaging our environment and our globe such that one day it will not support us, for example in Don Watson’s article, he describes such an event. If we were able to prove that there is life on another planet or put life on a planet that is virginal and that DNA could self replicate and divide, then we could say as a global species that we have done something globally or demonstrated something globally as a species because it would remove us philosophically from this globe, as currently we are still stuck here in our belief systems. Other than this there is no such thing that we have done globally as mentioned that has been done. I would like to reference Clark, Dick, Tolstoy, Wells, Bradbury and Weinbaum as axiomatic authors in this field of science. And acknowledge Einstein, Kant and Copernicus as the founders of modern analytical thought in this field.

=WEEK 5= My Country of Origin is Australia; however I am a first generation Australian with a German and an American passport. I believe in promoting human well being, I am therefore going to discuss the role of the World Bank in relation to its core objectives, programs and outlooks in relation to the future and how we might go about helping the countries, and civilians in those countries who need help most. The full list of World Bank goals are ([]); The most important thing about this organization is that all the major parties involved within the distribution of wealth, are countries that are at the top of the GDP dog heap per se. The organization is funded mostly by the United States, such that they are the main deciders of where funding is directed and also have a major say in who is elected as their head ([]). The question is whether in relation to world goals, where the interests of the United States lie, and are they actually aiming at working towards these goals. There may not be any evidence. If you take the war in Iraq for example, this war cost the United States 1 trillion dollars. This amount of money given to the World Bank would be able to solve most of the goals about with more to spare. There is no doubt that NGO’s play a huge role in alleviating many of the problems associated with the above problems with the world. But sometimes I feel that people only use these organizations to avoid paying tax. By donating money to these charities, the money they give is spent on where their own interests lie whether it’s political or not. Look at Gina Rheinhart, she is the richest woman in the world, and I would not be surprised if she donates lots of money to charity and to the various political parties too, however because she donates such monies, would it be wrong to assume that she has a large say in where and what this money goes towards? There is no doubt that NGO’s will continue to play an integral part in society over the next few decades, however I think that people will continue to get richer and continue to use these NGO’s as outlets to avoid paying tax, and hence continue to amass incredible fortunes at the expense of the very things that such organizations say they are contributing toward solving. Whether the business sector and the World Bank organization and the major players in the corporate world support the World Bank goals and also many of the UN goals are similar to those above, is imperative for positive outcomes (unit objectives). I look at the actions of the BP Corporation in response to the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico as a vital miscarriage of justice. To not be held liable is a direct breach of the goals, This is an instance where because the power of the rich and the share holders, look to control aspects of environmental law and policy to their own benefit with little or no global outlook in relation to such a goal. If the goal was energy security then the action taken would have been sufficient, however this was not the case. Corporations need to be held accountable for such damage, and the NGO’s and global civilians need to speak out against such breaches, and ensure more is done. As far as I am concerned BP should have gone into administration and all their assets and shares sold off to nations in the developing world. This would have been in my opinion positive action in relation to the environment, and sustainability. The World Bank should have said and done more too. If their goal really is, And not Energy security for the world’s richest nations, based on US, EU and Australian assessments and head appointees. The issue is definitely not black and white, and more needs to be done. A paper trail exists, that is hidden I don’t know where it is I don’t know where it leads. I must find it, is it a conspiracy ([]). Not that I am a republican or Democrat for that matter, I am Australian.
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Achieve Universal Primary Education
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Promote Gender Equality
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Reduce Child Mortality
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Improve Maternal Health
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other Diseases
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ensure Environmental Sustainability
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Develop a Global Partnership for Development
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ensure Environmental Sustainability
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Develop a Global Partnership for Development
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Ensure Environmental Sustainability
 * § <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">Develop a Global Partnership for Development

Source: [] []

=Week 6:=


 * || **<span style="color: white; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 36pt;">2012 ** ||
 * || UWA

Karl Benton West Svatos ||


 * ==** [ **** The Governmental Philosopher ] **== ||
 * Edited by Karl Svatos ||

The opportunities and constraints that influence the ability of your government to act as a positive agent for change.
 * 1) 1. What value will my writing offer the reader? A different perspective
 * 2) 2. What is my main message? Governmental integration, transparency
 * 3) 3. What are the arguments supporting my message? Venn Diagrams and charts
 * 4) 4. Do they link coherently and sequentially? Yes
 * 5) 5. Is my writing likely to have the impact I want? Yes

The Government has power to control wealth for growing capital to distribute to the population who elect it via democracy. The politics of the government establishes the laws based on societies needs at a particular time in the environment which interest the people to earn credit to support their lives. Essentially how we vote in Australia reflects a centre left or right position. There is little or no room for people on the far left or right. The centre shift is indoctrinated within societal and cultural objectives as the above sentence suggests. Hence the following diagram explains how government succeeds in Australia. I have also attempted to put this in a journal style. An attempt to show that change must come from within first is given below to support the argument of opportunity and constraints are subjective in nature. Change is objective…

Existentialism predicts that all thought is subjective unless you only consider that within yourself, to be that by itself, itself. “I think therefore I am”… This is reflected in the above governmental system but the impact that I am trying to show here is that philosophically we are all at the peril of our and only our conscience thought. It can be no one else’s. The political system and the environment and society of humanity are complex systems within themselves. Essentially change must come from within ourselves first. This must be brought about by objective thought. In this model the human being is the centre of focus. And everything else happens outside… It is the main mechanism that change can be seen to be transpsrent.

=Week 7:=

Weapons of Mass Destruction:
There isn’t much more a controversial issue in the last 20 years than the Weapons of Mass Destruction that led Australia and most of the “coalition of the willing” into a conflict that is still going on 13 years after September 11 attacks carried out by Al Qaida. The initial war on Iraq led by George Bush the 1st was also over said Weapons of Mass Destruction too. Since the bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the United States have spent a total of nearly 1trillion dollars on “bringing to justice” the terrorists (Figure 1), however no one has actually found the weapons of mass destruction to this day they remain undiscovered.

The real question I guess is what was the real reason that the United States entered into Iraq and Afghanistan, if they didn’t know that there would be any weapons, and how did millions of Europeans and Australian’s get fooled by Bush and Blair and Howard into believing that such weapons existed? To this day, Bush and Blair are wanted in a multitude of countries on war crimes charges and to this day nothing has been done in relation to the evidence lacking guilt upon any of Hussain’s regime that suggests that he possessed these weapons. This is where the idea of propaganda comes into the fray. I believe that Bush and Blair and Howard used their political power to accuse the Iraqi regime of weapons of mass destruction to secure the oil resources of their country for the interests of energy security, which is a top priority of developed nations. There are numerous reasons for this. Secondly though I cannot substantiate this, I believe that it was in the best interests for Israel to support the war through a campaign in Washington and elsewhere, to overturn Saddam’s regime to bring instability to the Middle East (which climaxed in the murder of Yasser Arafat a Peace Prize winner and Israel completing their nuclear arms race), which then gave the Israeli’s more reason to continue their ethnic cleansing of the people of Palestine upon land that is not rightfully theirs (according to the United Nations Security Council). The propaganda that continues in support of Israel and the fact that little is being done continues to provide countries like Iran a reason to stockpile uranium and the like for their own defense. The reason that Israel continues is because they believe that the first leader of Palestine was a supporter of Hitler. Which is true but how can a people move on from its past when it is continually accused of terrorism, when the first terrorists were Jews?

See [] also. The coalition of the willing and everyone in the developed world and its allies, need to see that it is the choices that we make today can and will result in violence against humanity unless people stand up against Israel firstly (and not let them keep saying that the Palestinian people are advocates of Hitler because of a mistake that happened almost 70 years ago), such that ethnic cleansing stops, secondly that Bush, Blair and Howard are put on trial made to face court over accusation and execution of Hussein, and thirdly that the nations of Islam take a good hard look at themselves and stop their craziness in relation to their own terrorism regimes, their hatred of westerners, and their opposition of people expressing themselves freely, like in the portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad. This brings me to my final point. Do corporations like Google, Youtube and Wikipedia (to a lesser extent as it is a free content enterprise) and other’s own freedom of speech? When Assange’s Wikileaks were published on the internet they provided a source of information for millions of people into the workings of the Bush Regime and many other constitutional allies of the US that are top secret. The US administration used Google and other monetary applications to shut down donation operations, however in the latest video of the Prophet Google decided not to take the video down as it violated free speech laws. What is the difference? There is meaning here the only thing is finding the truth in the endless paper trail is very difficult to uncover, and so much of the Western World remain brainwashed by the propaganda that freedom of speech permits. Yet in Australia we still do not allow total freedom of speech, such that I could be arrested for having such a view! This is the exact reason why I see that in the immediate future Australia has a long road ahead. See []

=Week 8:=

Class in IHS 8812 - Sustainability and Ecological Sustainable Development in Modern 21st Century Times
Activity 1: Week 8 Assignment: Sustainable living in the 21st Century and Beyond:

Week 1: History and context of sustainability Week 1 will go over the basic principles of chemistry and physics including that of biological systems, physical process engineering, soil science, geology, geography and some aspects of the sustainability context in the international, national and local theatre.

Week 2: Reading week and study 1.) Atkins Physical Chemistry TEXTBOOK 2.) Chemistry “Haber and Bosch process” 3.) Physics “Einstein’s theory of relativity” 4.) Stratigraphy book 5.) Human anthropology and archaeology book- Past Perspectives

Week 3: Week 3 takes the students through the more complex issues of sustainability principles but focuses also on more specific issues associated with many of week 1’s work in relation to how people in society have come to accept or challenge the idea of sustainability as an ideological concept rather than an actuality. This is then transposed in the context of the works conducted in the past history by people like “Copernicus, Avogadro, Nicola Tesla, and Louis Pasteur…” The idea of this is to get the students to think that they are in the past and to try and gain an understanding of the complexities of the idea that each of their chosen scholars may have gone through during their lives. This is to show that many people are not always able to see what they do and that sometimes lives are lost due to their beliefs.

Week 4: (Examination in class) - Write a short history in relation to how someone in history that makes them feel like they had to struggle in their life would have lived today and what they may have done to overcome this struggle.

This task is intended to show people that sometimes a simple principle is not always easy to define, and that even after centuries some of the thoughts and beliefs may still remain controversial. Marks for individual thought and actual knowledge skills… Week 5 is a history lesson with a focus on the meaning of sustainability in today’s world. How sustainability principles have shaped our life and how also in some context some people have decided to not embrace the theoretical science that defines the idea of sustainability. The idea of this is to show that because sustainability has been defined in recent history as an environmental perception, not always does that focus remain around the simple definition of the word itself, but it becomes convoluted within reason, law and policy debate.

Week 6 is designed for students to find an example where the term sustainability has been misrepresented in society for financial gain, or to marginalise a particular company, group or person. People are asked to either form groups or work individually and present a piece of work reflecting their own or others thoughts in their group in relation to the question. Marks for using case basis information, and by individual thought integration with other’s or choice of varied referencing…

Week 7 is designed to show that sustainability is how we choose to live our lives because essentially we are all part of a society and need to be able to live in it. It is impossible to escape society. This week makes students to show that they are learning about the environment regardless of where they live how they live, what they do and what they chose to do. Essentially our being is always being challenged by our environment it continues. Time and space shape our nature.

Week 8: Final examination… Students are asked to devise a sustainability plan for themselves that will enable them to interact in their natural world. How they chose to live at the rate they live at decides their level of sustainability. Hopefully they will have seen that the point of the future being incorporated into today relies on a continuation of time at the rate which is sustainable. If time and space are continuing to evolve faster than us then how will we survive if we cannot do the simple things that we require? So they will take away from the unit an acceptance or disbelief. Neither is incorrect but both have merit and the choice is ours and theirs together as human citizens of the future in sustainability itself.

=Week 9:=

**<span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11.5pt;">Childhood Obesity: **
The question whether childhood obesity can be solved through any of the following solutions to wicked problems (i) Authortative, (ii) Collaborative and (iii) competitive is more a question on whether as a society we think it is OK for a person to have the right to chose to eat more calories than the next person, and not so much a question of the eating disorder itself. This makes the issue a wicked problem. Any particular issue that results from childhood obesity is usually considered as the main reason why people do not accept the observation that fat children are healthy. The medical journals support this, the media portrays this through its regulatory body, society in general looks at the little fat kid as an outcast and I myself do not like the look of fat children, and has a cousin who was fat as a child. The systemic portrayal of human beings as needing to look like Leonardo Davinci’s sketch of the perfect human, in order to be considered normal is old as history itself. One need not go far to remember the last time someone muttered an old fat person joke, and this is justified by language being the root of all memory and jokes being the storyteller’s punch line. What one must ask themselves to solve this issues is do we actually want to do something about it or, should we continue the way we have been going on? Let’s face it pharmaceutical companies benefit from it, government health bodies benefit from it, advertisers benefit from it, farmers benefit from it and food manufacturers benefit from it. So why should we care about little Johnny if 1) he isn’t our family or friend, 2) we benefit from the money we make off him and 3) it isn’t effecting us.

A valid response would be that it does affect us because we pay tax. Yet is this really the public consensus? A public consensus that would not be acceptable would be just to say, “Everyone who purchases food for themselves or their family must be able to prove that they are all under the following BMI, no exceptions.” This would work theoretically, yet the solution is extreme. And unfortunately politicians would not get elected on such a policy, marketing companies lose profits, farmers lose profits, advertisers lose profits, government authorities lose their tax entitlements which in the end although benefiting fat kit “X” get shot down in the public forum, (the media), but is this really the public’s consensus? This is the way it is. Change must be radical and swift yet most often people do not like change. So where are we going with all this talk about childhood obesity? I would argue that we are going no-where and the stats back me up. Due to our own lust for money and greed for profit little fatty Johnny boy “X” is doomed to die of heart disease but that’s OK because it keeps the doctors employed. In America it’s cheaper to eat fatty food than it is to eat healthy food it’s a fact. Solution change the way I live my life to enable other people to want to change the way they live theirs. In Wall-e (Spielberg's film 2008) humanity has just become fat, and cannot make their own decisions, but the power of 1 tiny ancient robot that discovers a plant on planet earth after it has been laid barren from pollution (making it habitable again) triggers a huge radical shift in the humans who are forced to learn to walk again. Perhaps there is no solution but if the change within is to make sure you are healthy and show this as a good thing and bring about radical change in your own way through your words and writings then maybe this is a good thing. But nothing is going to bring back your profits if this goes ahead.

= Week 10: =