Food Inc. Reflection

Food Inc. Reflection

After watching Food Inc, what are your impressions of how science, technology, and society are interrelated?  

After Food Inc.Most of our society relies engineering on from scientists.
 And we lie to be better and make are life easier. Scientists have fed chickens with chemicals to make them grow faster and bigger. If this didn't happen this way we wouldn't have the chickens in Mcdonald's and they are unhealthy.

How did the film describe science & technology as a positive or negative impact on society or the environment?  

The film described science and technology in both a negative light5. The movie focused on the bad effects , because when you are presented with the positive facts of science and technology, it is easy to figure out why it is good. Like the food that is given chemicals to make it grow faster. When it's grow faster you have a lot of them. And when you have a lot of them the prize is much more cheaper.

How do our consumer choices affect what is out on the market and therefore, our own survival?  

It affects it because when we buy a food from the market the amount gets lesser in the market. So they record that and get more of that,but if we don't buy and they see it is not selling anymore they will change the food and maybe replace it with something else.

How are we as humans connected to how the Earth is used?  

We humans are connected to Earth because we use factories and that causes damage to the Earth because we pollute a lot. We kill species of animals for food and this can make the survival time of the world much more lesser.

When do we say no to more high tech devices and go back to what caused the problem in the first place?  Why are we only into the "HOW" and not the "WHY?"

For example Apple. They had the ipod touch and now they made the ipad without even thinking the ipad does the exact same thing as the ipod touch, is much more bigger and costs much more. They just wasted money and people buys ipad but they also have the ipod touch.

What is the difference between natural farming and industrial farming? Which is better? Are they both necessary for human survival? Why or why not?

Natural farming is much better than industrial farming. Because industrial farmers doesn't care about the nature or the animals. Industrial farmers gives food to their animals that they can't eat it. Natural farmers cares about the environment much more than the industrial farmers.

If technology and industry have improved so much that we are getting faster, fatter, bigger, and cheaper, how are science and technology held responsible for improving or ruining human health and survival?

We have a several number of companies that does the survival for us. They must make life better for animals buy not feeding them with chemicals that make them grow faster and that is bad because then we eat the chicken for example and we get fat and that is not healthy for us either.

What economic costs, environmental costs, ethical costs, health costs, and cultural costs did you observe while watching the film?

I observed in the film that all the companies find the most cheapest way to do things. This is unhealthy because we eat animals and if they don't feed them in the right and good way they are not good to eat and we must eat them so it is not good for us either. We must help our population because people can die and are dying from these situations.

Finally, state your final thoughts about this film and any changes you see happening in the food industry in the future or even your own eating habits.

After his movie I can't trust the companies and see how the food I eat is processed and how they treat animals. I watched a video how McDonalds treat animals just to make money and sell. They must think how they treat them and see if they would want to be threaten in the same way as they treat them.

Current Events # (Marsupial carnivores 'as diverse as other mammals once')

They are an extraordinary and now rare group of animals but Earth has had some formidable marsupial carnivores.These pouched killers have included lions, wolves, and even sabretooths.Today, the only large marsupial carnivore left in existence is the Tasmanian Devil, and that is on the brink of extinction.These animals' past success though is illustrated by a new skull study that reveals the creatures to have been just as diverse as their cousins, the placental mammals.An international team examined the skulls of some 130 carnivores - marsupial and placental, living and extinct - from the past 40 million years.

My Ecological Footprint

I found out that my ecological footprint was 7.04 hectares and also that if everyone lived like me we would need 3.87 earth. This interesting and I found out my footprint.

Tracking tigers in Korea's DMZ

 This talks about a man that loves wild animals. These are not soldiers from the nearby U.S. or South Korean armies. Rather, they are a rag tag team of conservationists (and, he suspects, a few of their buddies who may have joined the trip for the rations of hot dogs and blueberry pancakes).(CNN) 

He is squeezed in a sleeping bag in an old military tent near the Demilitarized Zone in South Korea.He is camping out with a band of men dedicated to protect their loved ones.(he calls it the loved ones, that means wild animals)

The chief eco-warrior is Sun Nam "Tiger" Lim. (In Korean, his last name translates to "Woods" -- as in Tiger Woods -- no kidding.) Lim has been tracking tigers for 20 years and says his research shows the endangered cat lives in the DMZ.

Current Event #4

The study is the most extensive and sensitive planetary census of its kind. Astronomers used the W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii for five years to search 166 sun-like stars near our solar system for planets of various sizes, ranging from three to 1,000 times the mass of Earth. All of the planets in the study orbit close to their stars. The results show more small planets than large ones, indicating small planets are more prevalent in our Milky Way galaxy.We studied planets of many masses -- like counting boulders, rocks and pebbles in a canyon -- and found more rocks than boulders, and more pebbles than rocks. Our ground-based technology can't see the grains of sand, the Earth-size planets, but we can estimate their numbers," said Andrew Howard of the University of California, Berkeley, lead author of the new study. "Earth-size planets in our galaxy are like grains of sand sprinkled on a beach -- they are everywhere."