Wednesday, July 28, 2010

A letter by Late Smt. Indira Gandhi on Environment

By:
Smt. Indira Gandhi
(late Prime Minister of India)
Plenary Session of United Nations Conference on Human Environment
Stockholm 14th June, 1972


It is indeed an honor to address this Conference-in itself a fresh expression of the spirit which created the United Nations-concern for the present and future welfare of humanity. It does not aim merely at securing limited agreements but at establishing peace and harmony in life-among all races and with Nature. This gathering represents man's earnest endeavour to understand his own condition and to prolong his tenancy of this planet. A vast amount of detailed preparatory work has gone into the convening of this Conference guided by the dynamic personality of Mr. Maurice Strong the Secretary General.
I have had the good fortune of growing up with a sense of kinship with nature in all its manifestations. Birds, plants, stones were companions and, sleeping under the star-strewn sky, I became familiar with the names and movements of the constellations. But my deep interest in this our `only earth' was not for itself but as a fit home for man

Man and His Environment

Every year millions of people flock to the sandy beaches of Florida in hopes of surf, sun and fun.  The things that one can do at the beach are almost unlimited: picnicking, touring the ocean on a motor boat, fishing, snorkeling, or just playing games on the beach. Amidst all the fun it is hard to think about the effects this has on the environment.  Even the simplest picnic is problematic to the ecosystem; there is almost always litter left behind, either accidentally or purposely.  With a high gust of wind a sandwich bag could fall into the water and pose a threat to wildlife.  Eighty percent of all marine pollution comes from human activities on land.  According to Scholastic Update, five major sources of ocean pollution are: runoff from land 44%, air pollution 33%, shipping 12%, dumping wastes 10%, offshore oil production 1%.

A prime example of this would be human impact on the loggerhead sea turtle which may mistake a sandwich bag for a jellyfish, one of their primary sources of food, and try to eat it.  Upon ingestion, however, the turtle may choke and die. 

Man and Environment

By Asst. Dr. Nantana Gajaseni 


Life = biosystems organized by interactions between biological components interacting with physical environments, and become a unified whole with capacity to maintain homeostasis and self-perpetuation

For more Download PPT 



Man in Relation to His Environment

By Keshav Malik
Conditions influencing development or growth is how the dictionary defines the word environment. For the plant, as we know, sunlight, air and water are the environment. For insects and animals topography, climate, food resources as also the proximity of different animal species, or man, is the environment. Changes in the relationship or balance of any of these several factors determine the behaviour of the plant or the animal, although this becomes acutely evident only in the long run.
The real environment
Now the environments that influence or determine plants and animals also mould human nature. But for the purposes of this workshop, as indeed in any context, the generality of men are rather less concerned with these environments and more with the vital human forces or factors fatefully shaping man. If I may say so, man’s real environment is men. It is social behaviour that conditions human development in any crucial sense of that term. And what is it that moulds social behaviour — ideas, beliefs, notions, biases, presuppositions? A child is born to all these and his unfolding character and physical nature reflect his mental inheritance. This is his real environment. All outwardly observable behaviour, all notable action could be traced to habits planted or shaped by belief.
The record of nations with vast differences in flora and fauna and in climate has shown us amazing similarity in outlook, temperament and attitude. Nations close in the first factors have shown an equal diversity in characteristics. History is replete with instances of the so-called national characteristics of a people, at once ranging from peaceable to warlike, from earthy to other-worldly, at different periods of their existence. These notable changes are due to a great many factors, but here, as I said, we must pay attention to those factors that, for our purpose, are the prime movers. Changes in dynasties, foreign conquests, floods, the havoc of drought, all these go to condition and influence man. And the aggregate of thus influenced men perpetuate the attitudes and the characteristics of the single individual. But many of the above-mentioned factors are only the outer determinants that passively shape man. The active element is the conscious shaping of the individual from man’s own beliefs about himself, his nature, his destiny. It is these attitudes that determine man’s relations to his time and life. When a man believes in predestination, his attitudes and behaviour are complementary. When a man believes that man makes history he assists at or is crucial to his own becoming. In other words, the state and nature of human awareness at a point of time in a cultural milieu are all important in the moulding or adapting of man to the total environment.
Two states
Now man’s beliefs are expressed not always directly but through institutions, rituals, cults, ceremonials, and through the assertion of a host of group identities. These cultural or social artifices are almost of a hydraulic chemistry and of far-reaching effect on human conduct. As if in keeping with animal reflexes and instincts, they can through usage over time get to be solid, icy, inflexible, unpliable. In other words, they are not amenable to easy change or renovation. They perpetuate themselves because, in turn, human beings themselves are prone to act out of two different natures — the pre-rational and the rational, the one open to enquiry, prepared for adaptation. This second state, the fluid one, itself follows on a state of heightened awareness, of imaginative perception. It is to be in constant touch with essential human values, as also to be possessed of a realistic knowledge of the material means, in order so to effectuate those values. In the fluid state, as I term it, there is no sacrosanctity attached to means. Holiness inheres only in the essentials. On the other hand, in the ‘iced state’ of institutions the means themselves tend to become fixed, sacred; with the result that it becomes all but impossible to question them. Fresh adaptation, here, becomes quite improbable in relation to new environments. The truth of essential values is lost. Rigidity, inflexibility, conformity, these are the consequences.
Thus institutions, at once useful and inescapable in the pursuit of the necessary, the good or the truthful life, very often become ends in themselves. A great deal of human history is the chronicle of this predicament: that, on the one hand, without organizations and institution the fruits of human insight, ingenuity, intelligence cannot easily be handed down to the individual, and on the other, that once come into being the authority which organizations or those who hold power exert creates the logic of its own vested interest. But with luck, and given a degree of sophistication, these institutions remain what they are — means to serve the individual, materially or spiritually. At these moments in history civilization has a chance of being at its peak. The too anarchical individual tends to be asocial, whereas the individual well ensconced in the vestments of social organization tends to be authoritarian. Either way there is faulty adaptation in the essential growth and development of the human self. As one knows, the visions and insights of seers, saints, savants often get to be stratified in the narrow religious orders that follow them, so there is not too much room here for the mind, heart or spirit to move about. Similarly political or social organizations often frown on freedom of thought. It is solitary men really, therefore, who keep the ship of life on an even keel. Captains of state, kings, others, are good enough to guide the destiny of a nation in its race for survival. But from the long-term perspective they function within the confines of settled ideas and established, stratified power. No matter how civilized, the rulers are unable to break new ground. It is for this that men without organizational power but only with the power of their spirit, heart or mind chart the longer path. It is from these sources that better adaptations related to the deeper values are consummated.

Stonehenge Had Neighboring, Wooden Twin—More to Come?

"It will completely change the way we think about the Stonehenge landscape."

 Picture of what a second henge near Stonehenge might have looked 
like.
Evidence of a timber henge, shown in an artist's reconstruction, has been found near Stonehenge.
Illustration courtesy University of Birmingham

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Start of Civilization

Neolithic Revolution (~12,000 BC)

The Neolithic (New Stone) Revolution occurred about 10,000 years ago and dramatically changed the way that early humans lived. Two important factors come out of the Neolithic Revolution:
  •     The development of agriculture and
  •     The domestication of animals.

These two changes allowed people to stay in one spot instead of wandering from place to place following their main food source (animals). Somehow Neolithic people learned how to plant and raise crops and keep and raise livestock for food. Now people were put in the situation of living together permanently and as a result much cooperation was needed for survival and civilizations started to arise.



Characteristics of a Civilization

With the Neolithic Revolution civilizations now began popping up in unsurprising locations - river valleys. These river valleys provided people with fertile soil due to their floods. These floods, combined with the new-found knowledge of farming and animal domestication, allowed for a stable food supply and so the Neolithic people settled down around these rivers. As these people lived together in one spot civilizations arose, which often shared theses common characteristics:
  •     Advanced technical skills - Sometime around 3000 BC, the Neolithic peoples around these river valleys learned how to make and use bronze tools and weapons. This in part allowed these peoples to construct permanent shelters and homes since they no longer were nomads, following their food source and looking for caves as shelter.
  •     A form of government - The floods that helped to provide the fertile soil for survival also posed a problem. The floods were sometimes massive and could wipe out an entire village if uncontrolled and farmers needed to get water to their fields during the dry season. As a result an irrigation system (dikes and canals) was necessary to control these waters. The construction of these projects required organization and cooperation among the Neolithic people on a massive scaled. So governments probably developed to direct these projects and to provide rules by which to live.
  •     A division of labor - As agricultural productivity increased, fewer people were needed to work in the fields producing food (much like the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century in England). These "extra" people who weren't needed to farm could then become artisans, or merchants or traders and production of all sorts was able to increase thereby providing a better standard of living for all.
  •     A calendar - Calendars were created out of the need to predict and know when the floods would arrive. Most of these early calendars were based on the cycle of the moon.
  •     A form of writing - Writing systems developed to keep records, put down rules, and to pass on complex instructions (maybe for irrigation) to future generations. For example the Egyptians developed a system of writing called hieroglyphics and the Sumerians developed cuneiform.

Earth the Biography: Oceans

The Early Earth and Plate Tectonics

Search

Google

Intense Debate Comments