pandas or life? Choose!

Based on the word wild life article : http://worldwildlife.org/species/giant-panda

 

Panda present on the WWF logo has become a true institution recognizable among others. Only a very few companies can claim to have such a strong symbol, as Nike or Adidas, but in the surrounding environmental it’s the only one. WWF has chosen Panda from its founding in September 1961. This is the year where the panda Chi Chi came to London Zoo. A wide animal threatened, which was very touching with his eyes surrounded by black. A great symbol for the founders of the WWF, who decide to make it their emblem. Thus, the panda has become the WWF logo and beyond, the nature’s conservation. They are so cute, we are all agree to admit it, but an issue is growing. Have we reason to try to save these big fluff or is that we are just prolonging the existence of a hopeless and wasteful species that the world should've given up on long ago? I have already made my decision, and in my very own opinion, the first test of a species' worthiness for conservation should be some instinct for self-preservation. And pandas are completely failing.

The article describes pandas as “peaceful creature with a distinctive black and white coat is adored by the world” witch having a “Crucial Role in Forests” endangered cause of the “Roads and railroads are increasingly fragmenting the forest, which isolates panda populations and prevents mating.”. Indeed pandas don't have much of a habitat left in the wild, thanks to heedless human development. But the decreasing number of pandats it is the only human fact?

First of all, their breeding habits don't suggest a species brimming with “energy” (if you know what I mean). Pandas at the research center in Chengdu were so disinclined to mate that employees must give their doses of viagra and videos of other bears procreating, hoping they'd do the same. Zoos more often resort to artificial insemination. In the wild, where birthrates aren't much better, pandas are prone to inbreeding. Females can only ovulate 2 or 3 days each year, and if a mother does manage to have more than one cub, she abandons the weaker. With such poor reproductive abilities it is understandable that the panda is endangered.

Second, although pandas has bear's predatory teeth, this lethargic and flabby creature eat just only bamboo, a plant that's nearly devoid of nutritional value and becomes scarce. Pandas consume between “26 to 84 pounds of it a day”, eating constantly, speeding their own demise.

Thereby zoos and right-minded specialist imagine they are doing the right thing helping these poor creature by preventing them from a certain death. "Here's a species that of its own accord has gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac," Chris Packham, a British author and wildlife activist, said in 2009. He argues that "the panda is possibly one of the grossest wastes of conservation money in the last half-century." And unfortunately he's completely right. The economics of protecting this doomed species are simply unjustifiable. Canada in 2010 spent ten million dollars renting the creatures from China while cutting government spending elsewhere. American zoos typically pay the Chinese government one million dollars annually for a single panda. Taking care of them, supplying them with a habitat, staff and all that bamboo costs five times what it costs for elephants, the next most expensive zoo animal, it’s a number too big for a so useless beat.

Lu Zhi, a panda expert from Beijing University, has said that trying to reintroduce pandas to the wild is as "pointless as taking off the pants in order to fart." Yet the Chinese government, for which pandas is a source of national pride, spares no expense on them. What is particularly revolting when we think that it’s a country where roughly 160 million people still live in extreme poverty.

Of course it is the responsibility of the human being to preserve nature, but we must ask the right questions. It would be wonderful if we could afford to protect every species animals, but unfortunately this is not the case, we must make difficult choices. It is the very principle of Darwinism, evolution as the lowest ultimately disappear in favor of the strong and all that money is better spent on preserving diverse species rather than on a single hopeless animal. Why not instead use it to save another species with the threat of extinction is much more fraught with consequences: bees. In France, for thirty years, bee populations are declining. This phenomenon concerns other parts of Europe, North America and Asia.

Want to be scared? Try to imagine life without pollinators. You can’t? Actually it’s normal cause it’s impossible, their disappearance would most likely lead to the death of all ecosystems on earth. “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have only four years to live” Albert Einstein.

the Public Health Act

 

In the mid-XIXth Century, the British government took measures to promote public health in the main cities. Because of the Industrial revolution, population from the country-sides moved to the prospering cities where the industrial activities were concentrated. At this time, cities were expending and the question of public health became more important than ever: the new-comers who worked in the factories during the day, lived in rudimentary places after work, and in the humble neighborhoods, overpopulation and epidemics were current.

To remedy at the situation, the government passed in 1848 the Public Health Act, which provided the creation of a General Board of Health and Local Boards in the urban areas. The same year, the doctor John Simon was appointed Medical Officer of Health for the City of London; he was especially in charge of the maintenance of the sewers, which were very important to ensure the wholesomeness of cities. He also was in charge of making annual reports on the evolution of the living conditions of the citizens ; this text, the City Medical Report of 1849 is one of those reports. John Simon made many proposals in order to improve the living conditions of the poor, for example solidify the concept of state scientific research, strengthen the existing public vaccination system and supervise members of the medical profession.

The text evokes the situation in England at this time, and how the public opinion explains it.

 

                 It is necessary to contextualize the text to understand it. In the XIXth century, living conditions of the poor and sanitary reforms became one of the greatest debates. In the country and especially in the cities, it occurred serious sanitary issues which were at the origin of murderous epidemics, as, for example the epidemic of cholera in 1849. In this report, the author starts with a long description of the miserable living conditions of the poor: they lived in houses containing “sanitary evils” (l.9), and he makes a list of them. Among them, we can notice the absence of hygiene (houses without lavatory, waterless and unventilated) which means that the diseases could proliferate. The author also evocates the overpopulation, which is a threat to wholesomeness: people are too numerous in each house and live in dirt, so they develope diseases more easily.

                The historical context explains these sanitary issues in England in the XIXth century. The main cause is the industrial revolution. It provoked the rural exodus which leaded to the rally of the population of poor farmers in city districts in which they lived in rudimentary housings. There was soon an overpopulation in these districts and they were degraded. Moreover, the new industries needed workforce but the transports (to join the country-side to the city) were not developed enough, so, either the industries offers rudimentary housings, or people settled by their own near to the production centers.

                J. Simon wrote in the middle of the XIXth Century; at this time, in Britain, the sanitary sphere is closely connected to the moral sphere. It is a characteristic of the Victorian values, in force at this time. The aristocrats, who paid a sharp attention to hygiene, considered that the social gap between the upper and lower class was symbolized by the difference of hygiene: the inferiority of the poor was attested by their dirtiness, while the superiority of the rich was shown by their perfect hygiene. The social distinction between the two classes drove to a moral distinction. Poor were presented as creatures without any moral sense ; according to the upper class, they had no shame and lived in a scandalous lack of privacy (exactly like cattle) : “Men and women, boys and girls, in scores of each, using jointly one single common privy ; grown persons of both sexes sleeping in common with their married parents” (l. 16-17).

                It was in this context that the author wrote his report. Dr J.Simon, as a doctor, belonged to the upper class. In the first part of the text, he seems to stick with the Victorian values. In the second paragraph (from l. 9 to l. 28) he confesses that these values are based on truth, he does not deny the situation, because he had been able to observe it by his own. He shared the upper class’ ideas, and according to him, the life conditions of the poor got worse and their morale values too : « to whom personal cleaness is utterly unknown ; smarms by whom delicacy and decency in their social relations are quite unconceived » (l. 14 to 16)

                J. Simon bring many testimonies of the dreadful living condition of the poor in this document, he employs frequently the pronoun “I” and insists on the fact that he actually is a direct witness of the poor's behavior (l 16 to 20). He notes that those people became accustomed to this way of life, and their degrading condition doesn't trouble them. He considers the possiblity that the workers are too deeply acustomed to their living conditions to change them easely : “[they] have been led, perhaps to consider themselvses as inseparable from poverty” (. 28-29). Government took measures to help the poor, but J. Simon observe that they are useless : he write about the “inefficiency of measures designed for their advantage” (l. 2-3) ; it seems that the state does try to take care of the poor, but they don't cooparate, which is the explaination of the inefficency of the government's help. Because they never learn to use them, the workers can't use correctely the amenities intented for improving their living conditions, such as the water-closet ; they don't understand the fonction of the different items, and “apply indefferently [one of them] to the purposes of each other, or one the purpose of all” (l. 6-7).

                According to J. Simon, these dreadful conditions seem to be exclusively poor's fault. He sais : “It is true that, among theses classes there are swarms of men and women, who have yet to learn that human beings should dwell differently from cattle” (l. 14-15) ; for him, the workers are barley human beings, their behavior is more similar to animals (cattle), than to civilized peopole. J. Simon is from the upper class, and he believes in the victorian hackneyed expressions on the lower classes, which are suppose to be made of individuals stupid, filthy, and whithout any moral considerations. We perceive that he looks with condescension and even with scorn on the lower class : according to him, their habits are “filthy”, “improvident”, “dishonest”. But he also concedes that poor are not the only to blame ; certainly, government tried to improve their living condition by offering some sanitary equipements, but the best way would be to teach them to use them properly, and above all, to inculcate some morality to them. He asks rethorical questions, such as “after their long habituations to such influences (...) the physical debasement of their abode ?” (l. 28 to 30) to show the tragical situation of the society, which considers hygien as a priority, but doesen't take the appropriate measures to guarante it.

                It seems that the only efficient way to help the poor would be to educate them and transmit to them the moral values of the upper class. J. Simon proposes to “convert” them to morality, which will lead to improve their behavior, and logically, their living conditions, because the dirt will became intolerable for them (l. 23-27). Simon points that the poor are “whom the heart of sociey often appears to discard” (l. 40-41) ; it's an implicte critisizm of the rich's desinterest about poor, which has lead to this situation. By taking care of the poor, the rich would reduce the gap separating the two classes and collateraly, they would protect social order and civilisation. The poor behavior is inconceivable by the aristocrats higly normative moral standarts of this time, and represents a real threat upon civilisation, because it is a “manner in wich a people may relapse into the habits of savage life” (l. 21).

                This J. Simon text reflects the concerns of the doctors of this time. At XIXth century, many of them denounce the weakness of the sanitary systems in the european cities which leads to epidemics, but they also denounce the dreadful poverty in which the workers live. J. Simon is a scientist, but he concerns about the quality of the style in his reports, he aims to warn the authorities of the gravity of the social and moral context of the lower classes, to convince them take the right decisions to help the poor. For instance, he uses repetitions “who can wonder (...)” and rethorical questions in a bid to insist on the poor's distress and to make the reader feel responsable for the poor's situation and to provoke his sympathy for the cause.

                The author did not write a neutral report, he did not just explain what happens, but in his text, he tries to understand the situation, gives his opinion and above all, offers solutions directly from his observations. The Simon’s report has a historical dimension because we find in the text the Victorian values of the time, and the situation in the English cities in the XIXth century. It is a particular report also because it is written in a certain style, the author worked on the writing in order to convince the reader. Though John Simon is a doctor, he is not only preoccupied by the sanitary issues but he also cares about deterioration of the poor’s moral values which are the result of their dreadful living conditions. He is not a simple doctor, he has a scientific method (he observes the living conditions of the poor, he tries to find their causes and searches to find a way to improve them), but he also have moral convictions and passes moral judgment on the workers social behavior.

Be an astronaute : it' sucks!

!WARNING SPOILER!

 

I choose to talk about the film “Gravity”, I have seen it few weeks ago and I really enjoy it.

Start at the beginning, I’m gonna explain the synopsis. As you can imagine, “gravity” deal with space and astronaut, nevertheless, I’m sorry if I disappoint you but there isn’t any alien. Elsewhere have you seen the film?

During the film there are only two characters, the doctor Ryan Stone, interpreted by Sandra Bullock, and Matt Kowalski, a veteran astronaut on the verge of retire and who do his last trip into space interpreted by George Clooney. Sometimes we can hear the voice of the technician stay on earth who are giving instructions, but that’s all, there is only two actors in the whole movie.   
In my opinion it’s a very dangerous choice, but it’s works in this film… Anyway I will explain this later.

At the beginning it’s just a very runs-into-the-mills’ mission, but whereas the two character are outside the space’s station, a technician informs then that Russian blew up one of their own station earlier and debris from explosion are turning around earth and approach quickly the place where there are so they must get in the station to protect themselves.

Unfortunaly they don’t have the time and the doctor Stone is protected away from the ship, turning on herself again and again, unable to stop because of the gravity 0 and she faints. When she wakes up, she is alone, lost in the dark, she can see nothing, she calls the station but nobody answer because she’s too far and continues to drift into space. But fortunately Matt found her, indeed as he’s a confirmed astronaut he can move in space thanks to thrusters but it is the only one to be equipped.

They return to the shuttle and discover it is pulverized; Stone and Kowalski are totally alone, left to themselves in the universe. The deafening silence around them tells them they have lost contact with Earth - and all chance to be saved. Kowalski decides they must go to an another station to take a module and return on earth. But the station is far away from them and they have to let them drift to join it because Kowalski can hardly propel them, because thrusters are almost empty.

Gradually Stone panic, especially as each breath, it consumes a little more some oxygen reserves largely eroded when drifted. But Kowalski calm her. As there are approaching the station Kowlaski propel them one last time they drift in the right direction.

They knock on the station, but failed to hold on to anything. Stone Foot’s hangs in extremis in cables and she manages to catch Kowalski. But he took too much speed and leads Stone with him, unfortunalty it’s too late for him, he can’t be save then he forces Stone to let him go to save her. While he fatefully recede away from the ship she promises to come back for him.

And that’s all I’m done with the synopsis. Now I want to explain why it’s excided me so much.

First of all it was a terrifying film, however there’s no blood, no psychopathic murderer or monsters eating people. But throughout the film, I was terribly tense, because of the atmosphere, and it’s very strong what the director could done. This is true when you think about the space you imagine the ships that go faster than light, aliens, adventure, the last borderland of the human being. But that’s not what is really space, or not yet. Actually we are completely alone in space, if you have a problem anyone can’t do nothing, not even us, we are utterly powerless in space. We are lost in the immensity, into cold, darkness, nothingness, unable to move or breathe, knowing that we are going to die alone however the earth it’s just in front of us, so close and yet so far, unattainable. And this is more terrifying than any serial killer in my opinion.

The fact that there are only two characters into the film reinforces this feeling of loneliness, it starts instead of the characters, I can not count how many times I was hanging onto my chair while Stone is caught up in extremis before disappearing into space. And when George Clooney die, I cried, OMG I cried so much, not because is sad,      
But because she held, but she could do nothing, and he knew it, and he very calmly dropped the cable, the only thing that could save him from a horrible death because he knew it was the only thing to do, he was already doomed but he could still save her.

Contrary to what some people say I think there is a depth in the film, these images from space, these senseless clouds, these incredible visions of our small planet, in this his incredibly worked, and that return, according astronauts who have seen the film, what they saw up there and made ​​you want to apply for the next mission. Nothing on the meaning of life, or it then incomplete paradoxical: Survive.