Category: Best 110 Critical Paper

Posted on

Maternity Leave in the USA

Emilee Kennedy

After a new baby is born, the parents will often be feeling many very intense emotions. Love, excitement and happiness- all positive in response to the arrival of their child. However, in the United States, certain laws and policies can also have parents feeling the opposite way. These parents are scared that they won’t be able to afford this new life, worried about all the time the new mother will need to heal, and stressed about the new costs and responsibilities this new life will consume. The United States has been severely lacking in implementing fair maternity leave policies nationwide. If we were to improve or replace our current laws, not only would new mothers and families reap the benefits, but also the employers and even economy- in the long run. Our country has been unfair in prioritizing businesses over people, and should endeavor to provide more comfort and financial safety for new parents as a national priority.

The United States is one of only eight countries in the entire world that offers no paid maternity leave to new mothers. Of those eight countries, it is the only high income country to not offer paid time off. For a small family or a single mother, that unpaid time off is difficult to recover from, especially with the sudden increase in household costs due to the new baby. According to a report by The American Department of Agriculture, it costs more that $233,000 dollars to raise a child (Lino). This study done in 2015 accounts for costs from birth to the age of 18, and excludes the expense of a college education. Adding another person to a household drastically increases overall costs, and the physical reality for women is that they need some time off of work to recover from childbirth. Fathers also generally are allowed the same amount of time of unpaid leave, but seldom take it due to the necessity of women taking the time off for physical recovery. This means less bonding time between the father and child (Wallace and Christenson). A study in 2012 even found that fathers who took ten days of leave to care for the child found that they would be more likely to be involved in their child’s life as well as child care activities. But with new mothers (and in some cases-fathers) not going to work, overall incomes drop drastically. Although the laws in place cause obvious financial stress on the families, they also cause proven emotional stress on the mothers and children.

Studies show that these limited breaks given to new mothers can cause increased chances of postpartum depression (Ingraham). Approximately one out of seven new mothers experience postpartum depression, which can reveal itself as increased anxiety, sadness, mood swings, and in some cases even an adverse reaction to their own baby (Lieber). Arnold Lieber, a medical doctor, asserts that these symptoms can last for several weeks. Postpartum depression is typically caused by unbalanced hormones, changes in relationships, or emotional stressors including financial stress. It’s no wonder that there is an increased chance of this illness in the United States, where mothers are guaranteed no paid leave. Despite knowing they are causing stress on themselves, mothers are hesitant to leave work towards the end of their pregnancy, and rush to return due to financial strain. The limited time that they have to enjoy their baby is overshadowed by the stress of a reduced income, causing unnecessary stress that could result in postpartum depression. However, mothers are not the only ones who are negatively affected by unfair family leave policies. Limited contact time with the parents also has negative effects on the child. Breastfeeding is so crucial to the health of a child that many pediatricians agree that it is the best thing a mother can do to help a newborn thrive. A study in California in 2011 found that women with access to paid maternity leave breastfed for nearly twice as long as mothers who didn’t (Heymann). Breastfeeding has been found to reduce the chances of asthma, obesity, and infant sudden death syndrome in babies, while simultaneously benefiting the mother with reduced risks of breast and ovarian cancer, diabetes, and heart disease (Wallace and Christensen). However, after going back to work some mothers find the hassle of breastfeeding or pumping to not be worth the benefits. Very few employers offer convenient places for breastfeeding/pumping breast milk, and up until recently most mother were forced to do so hidden away in their office or locked in a bathroom. Being forced to pump in these conditions everyday are enough to make most mothers quit, assuming that the hassle and embarrassment isn’t worth it. There is significant research proving all the negative effects of short maternity leave as listed above, but there have also been studies that show how intense the positive effects are after countries provide better benefits to new families.

In countries where at least one parent stays home after a birth, we see significant increases in their quality of care over the first few years. Children whose parents were offered paid leave are 25% more likely to get vaccines, simply because they have the extra time to focus on their children (Wallace and Christensen). The reality of paid parental leave is that we will be more likely in the future to have increased well being of both mother and child. Mauricio Avendano Pabon, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health claims “This is really what economists call a human capital investment. You invest in this, you will end up picking up the benefits of this policy even years later.” So why is the US Government so hesitant to invest in the future of their own citizens, and create laws to enforce the necessity of paid parental leave? The truth is that America values businesses over people. With all of this proof of benefits for both the mother and child, there is no feasible reason paid family leave is still so inaccessible in the US, especially when other countries have implemented fair maternity leave policies with great success.

Finland is one of the frontrunners for best family benefits in the world. They have proved several times that their overall compassion and concern for the wellbeing of new families should be prioritized in a country. They are currently much further along on the path of fair maternity leave. This makes sense considering their first legal maternity guidelines were enacted in 1938, 55 years before America passed its first laws pertaining to family leave. Something unique that Finland provides to new mothers is a Maternity Care Package. These became available for all mothers in 1949, and provide childcare essentials such as clothing, bedding, diapers, and even educational material. The care package itself even doubles as a sleeping cot, perfect for a low income family. Finland has excelled in the field of providing adequate family leave. They also offer Maternity Grants, or lump sums of money to qualifying parents. This is unheard of in the United States, and this is only one example of why Finland is the most progressive country in terms of fair family medical leave. New parents in Finland are offered up to 104 days (3 months) of leave after the birth of their child. After this period of full pay, there are various services available to parents that can provide them with their partial, or occasionally even their full salary until the child turns 3. After the child has passed the age that this is offered, there are programs that can provide either partial childcare allowances or daycare allowances for working parents. The United States bleak family leave laws are nothing compared to the compassionate guidelines set by the Finnish government. Considering all the benefits that other first world countries are able to offer new parents, the details of America’s laws seem downright cruel.

The United States should be ashamed of its lack of family leave. Other high income countries are willing and glad to offer up to three years of paid leave. The US has always lagged behind its other high-income counterparts, passing the first law pertaining to family leave in 1993. FMLA, or the Family Medical Leave Act passed to guarantee 12 weeks unpaid leave to new mothers and fathers after a birth or adoption (Sholar). However, even this is difficult to be eligible for. By passing this vague law, the US decided that although workers who had to leave for family reasons are entitled to job security, whether they receive paid leave should be up to individual employers. While it is an option for employers, according to the National Women’s Law Center only 12% of workers are offered paid family leave. Although the reality of current laws in the US seem hopeless, there is a new legislation being pushed into Congress that could mean better rights for new parents. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (or the FAMILY Act) was proposed by Representative Rosa DeLauro and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and was introduced in 2017 (S. 337). The Act was proposed as a form of mandatory taxpayer-funded insurance, and would offer 12 weeks of paid leave to new mothers and father at a 34% pay cut (FAMILY Act FAQ). It is based on states with paid leave programs that are in place and showing incredible success such as in California, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. No further action has been taken on this proposal yet, but it’s existence is already a good sign for the future of family leave in America.

The few months after childbirth are some of the most emotional and challenging times for a new family. Increased financial stress can cause issues for all members of the family, which can result in serious mental issues later on. Paid maternity and paternity leave for these families could solve some of these issues, creating a healthier environment for the parents as well as the child. More time away from work could drastically increase the wellbeing of a child and the mother, with proof of better physical and mental health even years after birth. The future of improved family leave in the US looks bright, and hopefully the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act will be addressed by Congress in the near future. Raising a new baby is a challenge itself, and adding financial struggles and other stress to the family can be disastrous. The laws on required family leave should be less based on the inconvenience to the employers and more concerned with the wellbeing of the parents and child.

Works Cited

Chait, Jennifer. “Finland’s Family Benefits Prove Why It’s Ranked the Number One Place in the  World to be a Parent.” inhabitat.com, Inhabitots, 2013,   https://inhabitat.com/inhabitots/finlands-family-benefits-prove-why-its-ranked-the-number-one-place-in-the-world-to-be-a-parent/. Accessed 23 October. 2018.

Deahl, Jessica. “Countries Around The World Beat The U.S. On Paid Parental Leave.” NPR, NPR, 6 Oct. 2016, https://www.npr.org/2016/10/06/495839588/countries-around-the-world-beat-the-u-s-on-paid-parental-leave. Accessed 4 Oct. 2018.

Heymann, Jody, et al. “Policy and Global Health: The Case of Maternal Leave.”   Www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, US National Library of Medicine, 2011,                       www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150137/#. Accessed 19 October. 2018.

Ingraham, Christopher. “Analysis | The World’s Richest Countries Guarantee Mothers More than       a Year of Paid Maternity Leave. The U.S. Guarantees Them Nothing.” The Washington                     Post, WP Company, 5 Feb. 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018                    /02/05/the-worlds-richest-countries-guarantee-mothers-more-than-a-year-of-paid-maternity-leave-the-u-s-guarantees-them-nothing/. Accessed 4 Oct. 2018.

Liebelson, Dana. “How America Ended up with the Worst Maternity Leave Laws on Earth.” The Week – All You Need to Know about Everything That Matters, The Week, 27 June 2014,  theweek.com/articles/445827/how-america-ended-worst-maternity-leave-laws-earth.  Accessed 17 October. 2018.

Lieber, Arnold. “Postpartum Depression: A Guide to Symptoms & Treatment After Childbirth.”  PsyCom.net – Mental Health Treatment Resource Since 1986,  www.psycom.net/depression.central.post-partum.html. Accessed 16 October. 2018.

Lino, Mark, et al. “Expenditures on Children By Families, 2015.” Cpp.usda.gov, United States Department of Agriculture, Jan. 2017,                                www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/crc2015.pdf. Accessed 19 October. 2018.

Sholar, Megan. “The History of Family Leave Policies in the United States.” The American  Historian, The Organization of American Historians, tah.oah.org/november-2016/the-history -of-family -leave-policies- in-the-united-states/. Accessed 17 October. 2018.

“The Family And Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act: Frequently Asked Questions.”   National Partnership For Women and Families, Sept. 2018. Accessed 17 October. 2018.

United States, Congress, Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. 2017. Accessed 17 October.  2018.

Wallace, Kelly, and Jen Christensen. “Paid Leave Benefits Children and Families, Studies Say.”  CNN, Cable News Network, 29 Oct. 2015,  https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/health/paid-leave-benefits-to-children-research/index.html. Accessed 4 Oct. 2018.

 

Posted on

Casual Killing

Jessica Orazietti

 

Death itself is an event that we as humans cannot know. It is something that is a huge part of our living existence, though it is an unworldly, mysterious thing that we cannot even begin to construct in our imagination. In their book, Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate, Battin et al. (1998) explained that religion and other spiritual narratives are able to explain death in a more literal sense, as a continuation of life, providing comfort to those confronting the reality of its inevitability. Though regardless of what a person believes, death is still something that plagues us with questions (p. 13). A terminally ill diagnosis is something that can bring on these questions, as well as conflicting emotions felt by the individual diagnosed and their friends and family. When left with the prospect of the serious physical and emotional pain that comes with a situation such as this, in addition to the psychological turmoil of watching loved ones deal with their grief, some people choose to end their lives in a way that they believe will provide them with dignity and control. Assisted suicide is one option that some people now have available to them in Canada, as a way to go about achieving this, though with it’s legalization, comes many ethical and moral implications that must be evaluated.

At Sault Area Hospital, medically assisted death is a legally practiced procedure. An interview with an anonymous nurse, who is employed there, brought the reality of the situation to light. When questioned about her thought’s on the topic she stated that she isn’t sure how she feels about it, but “it’s a much more difficult process than just making the decision; there’s a psychological evaluation involved, a concrete terminal diagnosis must be made and the individual has to be of sound mind up until the very moment that they receive the end of life drugs” (personal communication, October 28, 2017). The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario’s (2017) Policy Statement on Medical Assistance in Dying, concurs with this account, outlining a precise process for this procedure. The first step involves the initial inquiry the patient makes to the physician, followed by a criteria evaluation and a secondary request, in front of two independent witnesses. The patient is then reminded that they can rescind the request at any time and a second physician ensures that the “eligibility criteria” have been met. A “ten-day period of reflection” then takes place, before the medication can be administered. Finally, the pharmacist is notified and the physician ensures the individual still has the “capacity” to consent. After which, they provide one more opportunity to withdrawal the request, prior to administration. (p. 7) The Centre for Effective Practice (2016), outlines capacity as the patient being “able to understand the information relevant to deciding to consent, or to refusing to consent, to MAID” and “to consider and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of consenting or not consenting to MAID?” (p. 4). Now, although the person is faced with making the decision time and time again, is re-addressing it and a measly ten-day reflection, sufficient enough? This is the biggest decision a person can make; they are quite literally confronting the absolute unknown and consenting to the end. Further, when will someone ever have the “capacity” to truly understand the consequence of such a decision?

When discussing Bioethics, Boyle, J. et al. (2008), wrote that putting physicians in the position to legally provide medically assisted death, might raise concerns regarding coercion, abuse, or the risk of error. The authors believe that self-determination is something that should always be recognized; however, it shouldn’t be something that is necessarily prioritized, when there are so many other ramifications at play. With assisted suicide, death, rather than treatment, is the primary objective, but should death really be something that is considered a medical procedure? (p. 73). At the end of the day, the legalization of killing someone in a medical setting is really what we’re talking about. When explicitly stating what it is, is something that would make the majority uncomfortable, should it really be something that is practiced? It probably shouldn’t be an option, especially when considering the old and the poor may become susceptible to pressures from either the people caring for them, or from healthcare organizations, that feel it would be too difficult and too expensive to continue with care.

In the physician’s case, though the prospect of completely removing one’s self from the equation, in order to respect the autonomy of a patient is honourable, it doesn’t seem like a possibility, when they are in fact killing someone. The moral implications placed upon a physician must be evaluated as well. Bill C 14 of the Canadian Royal Assent (2016) amends the Criminal Code to protect physicians from offences of “culpable homicide and aiding suicide” (para. 1), but there isn’t a safeguard in place to protect them against judgements of conscience that come with the knowledge that they assisted someone in, or facilitated, their death. Sometimes actions should be judged based on intention, but when the action is so absolute, it cannot be overlooked; there should be no justification for purposefully ending a life. In The Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics, Boyle, J. et al. (2008), stated that, with the argument that assisted suicide can be a way to relieve the terminally ill from their suffering, comes the counterargument that, though compassion is important, there is no way to ensure that this will be limited to “truly voluntary patients” and it may bring about an “increasingly casual attitude toward private killing.” (p. 17). As true as the intentions may be, killing and suicide should never be something that becomes so common, and accepted, that it is no longer serious.

Mentioned many times, is an argument based on the belief that this procedure is the ultimate way to give individuals autonomy, in a situation that is, for the most part, out of their control. Respect for the freedom and individuality of a person, outweighing everything in the ethical decision making process, is a belief that needs to be looked at a little more closely. In discussing end of life perspectives, Battin et al. (1998), made a good point when they wrote “a person dying loses their autonomy and their existence becomes their relationships with others” (p. 18). If one is to think about this, and try and put themselves in the position of knowing death is imminent, then yes, life probably would, more so than ever before, become about interpersonal connections – has everything been said; does everyone know their importance? Things are no longer about self – autonomy isn’t necessarily something with which people are primarily concerned. The decision is ultimately more outwardly influenced, and granting such a request isn’t really then achieving the goal it has set out to. Much of the time the motivation for an early end, has much to do with protecting loved one’s from having harmful memories, which of course, is something that is wonderful to do; however, probably shouldn’t be a primary force in a decision to die.

As grand as a notion is – to be so compassionate as to allow for someone to die in a peaceful way, where they are in control, sacrificing personal discomfort to help them do so – in a society such as ours, disingenuous motives are assumed. As much as many of us would like to it to be, people are not always virtuous and concerns about malevolent, or misguided intentions are valid in this regard. The killing of another human being, regardless of the reasoning, should not be something that becomes regularized. The lack of knowledge and comprehension about death and what truly happens confounds our ability to make true decisions about how we should pass. Leaving our conscious world should be something that is natural, especially being that we have the means to provide comfort and alleviate suffering in an individual approaching death.

References

Battin, M. Rodes, R. Silvers, A. (1998) Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. New York, NY. Routledge.

Boyle, J., Dickens, B., and Ganzini, L. (2008). Cambridge Textbook of Bioethics. Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from: http://www.dphu.org/uploads/attachements/books/books_5318_0.pdf#page=89

Centre for Effective Practice (2016) Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID): Ontario. Retrieved from: https://thewellhealth.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/20161118_MAID_Final_Fillable.pdf

Parliament of Canada, Royal Assent (2016). Bill C 14. Statutes of Canada 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-14/royal-assent

The College Physicians and Surgeons and Ontario (2017) Policy System # 4 – 16 Medical Assistance in Dying. Retrieved from: http://www.cpso.on.ca/CPSO/media/documents/Policies/Policy-Items/medical-assistance-in-dying.pdf?ext=.pdf

Posted on

Grab Some Rubbers: It’s the Law

Victoria Steffke

 

Throughout the history of America, the government has had many different laws regarding people’s sexual behavior. Some of these laws ban rape, child sexual abuse, incest, necrophilia, and sodomy to name a few.  Most of these were created to protect people from others, benefit society, and are enforced. However, some sex related laws were created and are no longer enforced because they are out of date. The sodomy laws are an excellent example. Currently, twenty-four states have laws against sodomy (Lectlaw). In the 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that consenting, private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights in the due process clause of the Constitution. This further explains why sodomy laws are not enforced and should even be removed as a law because this is a right people are able to decide for themselves. Similarly,  California’s Measure B, an amendment to the Los Angeles County Code that requires porn stars to wear condoms if any sort of penetration is occurring on set in San Fernando Valley, may be unconstitutional.  Additionally, the law would require producers to get a permit to produce the film, which, according to the California League of Women Voters, pays for a government employee to monitor the set to make sure it is complying with standards.  Measure B is not just a law telling people how to behave in regards to their personal sexual choices, but enforces the law, which is a step further than sodomy laws. With both actors being consenting adults to the actions performed, the law would be infringing on liberty rights to private sexual conduct.

Nevertheless, in November 2012, California voters passed the controversial Measure B.The controversy stems from the fact that the government would be controlling consensual adults’ sex lives and that this may be considered a misuse of tax payers’ money. The law was headed by the AIDS foundation to stop the spread of STDs and promote safer sex in the nation (Rogers). The adult film industry opposes this law because frequent tests are already conducted and the money the permit would cost would hurt the business (Lelyveld, 3).  They are even threatening to leave the Los Angeles area. The question then is should Measure B be enforced, and is it even a needed and justified law.

Support for the Law from AIDS Activists

The main reason Measure B originally passed was to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS. On average, each actor has sex with 12 new partners a month, or 144 a year (McNeil Jr.). This is more than most people have in a lifetime. With having such a vast amount of partners, it is easy to assume that diseases would quickly spread. These actors have their own personal lives too, so any diseases they get may not stay within that community. Diseases are adapting to medications and now some STDs are resistant to antibiotics. With these strains, a person has the disease for life so raising awareness is important. In addition, diseases such as AIDS do not show up on tests for potentially ten years (aids.gov). In the case of adult entertainers, the disease would spread like wildfire before a test would even show a positive result for the disease.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that condoms are highly effective in preventing transmission of STDs and HIV. In 2009, 191,034 people in California died of a sexually transmitted disease (California Sexually Transmitted Disease Program 2011). These deaths could have been prevented had proper protection been used.  If actors properly use condoms, they will have an almost full assurance they will not be infected. This is a precaution similar to nurses wearing gloves around bodily fluids. This law alludes that the porn stars should want to take all the proper precautions to stay healthy and questions whether the tests they rely on so heavily really effectively identify all diseases.

The other aspect the AIDS Foundation wanted people to think about was the influence of entertainment. Whether or not a person believes it, what one watches has some sort of influence on them. The AIDS Foundation wanted people to realize that those who watch porn are probably more likely to then want to have unprotected sex too. Requiring condoms would boost the subliminal desire of society to have protected sex, especially if people saw it could still be sexy. With one million people in the U.S. having HIV and one fifth of them not knowing they have it, encouraging a protective barrier to prevent diseases is a smart move (AIDS.gov).

Criticism from the Adult Entertainment Community

In Los Angeles, the city makes a large sum of money from the adult entertainment industry. While Detroit is the auto capital of the nation, L.A. is the porn capital of the nation. Thousands of people are employed producing a film from the actors to the make-up artists to the sound crew. Even more money, in the millions, is spent producing these and is made from these (Rogers). The money made is taxed so it is helpful to the economy and the government. The last time these films used condoms, sales went down 30%, which over time would hurt the city’s economy and potentially lead to some people’s jobs being cut (Lupkin). Along with this decrease is the large amount the city would charge to receive a permit to film. The money for the permit would cover the amount the city would have to pay to employ someone to watch the films to make sure they are complying with the law. In other words, a government employee would get paid to watch porn all day, which many people do not think is a wise use of government money. This fee would hurt the business even more and possibly shut them down.

While Measure B created the fee to cover the costs of the employee’s salary, one important factor was forgotten. This fee does not cover the cost of government employee benefits. The California State government salary benefits include paid time off, pensions, Employee Assistance Plan for help with personal issues, and retirement. The money to fund these benefits will not come from the film fee, but rather from taxpayer money. While the law comes across as not hurting the state’s budget, in reality it does. Right now, the California Governor Edmund Brown Jr. estimates that the state deficit is $15.7 billion. This seems like a time to cut spending, not create it.

Another point to think about is that the actors choose to perform in these films. At any time they could say they do not want to partake or they could demand protection use. These actors know the risks involved when they sign up for the job and still choose to perform. This is similar to professional athletes who know they could physically be injured while performing and potentially die, yet there are no government laws against sports. Also, all of the porn stars are required to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS every couple of weeks. The results are shown to the director and the industry has made sure actors cannot alter the results. The industry seems to regulate these concerns on their own without the government needing to be involved. The actors also realize there is a great deal of money being involved in the production of the movies so a delay due to health reasons is inconsiderate.

Lastly, is the stance the adult entertainment community takes at perceiving this law: it is a freedom of speech and expression issue. Pornography is all about fantasy and the performers act out these fantasies. A certain image is trying to be conveyed to the audience and wearing protection may not be giving the right idea of the character trying to be portrayed. Actors should be allowed to say what they want through film, and this right is protected by our first amendment. In addition, since pornography involves consenting adults it should be seen as grouped into the Constitution’s liberty rights. Those opposing the law believe it is unconstitutional and have the laws to back up this claim.

Finding Middle Ground

Looking at all of the facts presented, it is easy to see that both sides have well thought out points, however, the reasons for the law are counteracted by reasons against the law. The idea that using condoms in the film would boost the public to also use protection is offset by the fact that people become less interested in the films and purchases go down when condoms are used onscreen. Both condoms and STD checks are not fool proof. These neutralized arguments leave us with the newfound idea that there was not a valid reason for this law. In fact, the argument of money being lost in Los Angeles and the taxpayers’ having to pay for the government benefits is a bigger issue and a good reason to denounce the law. The answer to the question of whether Measure B was necessary is no. The measure was specific in enforcing the law so it has no potential to become like the unenforced sodomy laws. California’s Measure B needs to be repealed to help sustain the state’s economy that is already in trouble.

The best idea in this situation is to find common ground on these two issues. Porn stars do engage in risky sexual behavior, but it is consensual. The actors receive testing every two weeks. California recommends getting tested for STDs once a year as a general statement and does not take into account how many partners a person has. Therefore, the actors are going above the call of duty in taking care of their bodies according to state recommendations. Instead of paying a government employee to regulate the films, an adult entertainment association should regulate the business. While this would still cost money, it would cost much less, would save taxpayers’ money and promote actors to be safe. Removing this law would keep the Los Angeles economy thriving. It will keep people employed and allow revenue to be put into local businesses and government taxes. Putting a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie would help remind viewers of the risks involved in unprotected sex. Making the general public more aware of the likelihood of contracting a disease and how to prevent them would be a better goal for the AIDS foundation and the government to have.

Works Cited

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. AIDS.gov. AIDS, 2012. Web. 27 Nov. 2012.

California. Department of Public Health STD Control Branch. “California Sexually Transmitted Disease Screening Recommendations 2010.” CDPH. STD/HIV Prevention Training Center, June 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

California. Office of Governor. “Governor Brown Releases Revised State Budget.” CA.gov. Office of Governor. May 2012. Web. 28 Nov 2012.

California. Sexually Transmitted Dieseases Control Branch and Division of Comunicable Disesease Control.Office of AIDS. “STD and HIV/AIDS Case Registry Matching to Estimate California STD-HIV/AIDS Co-Infection.” CDPH. Sexually Transmitted Disease Program, September 2011. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

“California State Government Salary.” Sunshine Review. Sunshine Review. 2012. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Lawrence v. Texas. No. 02-102. Supreme Court of the United States. 2003. Supreme Court Cases. Lawyers’ Edition, Lexis Nexis Academic, n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

LectLaw.The Electric Law Library. n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2012.

Lelyveld, Nita. “Condom Law Hot Topic in Porn World After L.A. Voters’ passage of Measure B, Industry Types Ponder Compliance and Departure.”  Los Angeles: Los Angeles Times, 2012. Online.

Lupkin, Sydney. “Porn Industry Against Mandatory Condom Measure.”  Los Angeles: ABC News, 2012. Online.

McNeil Jr., Donald. “How Sex-Film Makers Prevent H.I.V.; Testing Appears to Work but Officials Still Want to Enforce Condom Use.”  Los Angeles: The International Herald Tribune, 2012. Online.

Rogers, John. “Measure B: Porn Industry Vows to Defeat New Condoms in Porn Law.” Los Angeles: Huffington Post, 2012. Online.

Smart Voter. Smartvoter.org. League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, 2012.Web. 11 Nov. 2012.

“Sodomy.” The Encyclopaedia Britiannica: Merriam-Webster. 2004. Print.

United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Condoms and STDs: Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel.” CDC. April 2011.Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Posted on

Thin is In

Alex Guillard

 

Magazines, television commercials, internet advertisements, and many other sources of mass media are all projecting the same image of beauty, and are bringing our entire society to believe the stereotype of attractive thinness they are advocating. The problem with this image is that it is one that is virtually unattainable for the majority of females across the country. Those who do attain it pay a high price, since the achievement of what is deemed beautiful results in unhealthy ultra-thinness, ensuing from or leading to eating disorders and other health complications. Those individuals who do not see themselves as beautiful may feel they can never measure up to the media’s image of “true beauty,” leading to an increase in depression and other psychological problems. Instead of benefiting society and increasing the self-esteem and good health of subscribers, mass media is causing a decrease in individuals’ perception of self-worth.

The topic of distorted beauty perception in America today is examined by Susan Bordo in her essay “Never Just Pictures.” She discusses the reasons behind eating disorders, especially focusing on the effect media has on our opinion of an attractive body. Referring to the role of fashion designers and models in our assessment of beauty and eating disorders, she says, “If this is a disorder, it is one that has become a norm of cultural perception. Our ideas about what constitutes a body in need of a diet have become more and more pathologically trained on the slightest hint of excess. This ideal of the body as beautiful has largely come from fashion designers and models” (367). Somehow, our cultural perception of beauty has changed, and is now judged by skinniness, while healthy weight is not seen as normative. When girls flip through a magazine they are looking for what is in style, and what will bring them success and popularity. If all they see are models who are practically skin and bone, they will aspire to conform to that appearance. Bordo speaks of how, “the fashion industry has taught us to regard a perfectly healthy, nonobese body…as…unsightly” (368). This view of extreme thinness as attractive is extremely prevalent in our society and hardly even questioned.

Studies have been done to prove this image of beauty that magazines today are advocating. Lora Beth Brown and others contribute to Bordo’s ideas on the influence of today’s media on individuals’ perception of beauty today. Their article, “The relationship between reading beauty and fashion magazines and the use of pahtogenic [sic] dieting methods among adolescent females,” was published in Adolescence magazine. They remark,

Several recent studies have analyzed a number of magazines targeted at adolescent females and have suggested that their content supports the perception that female happiness and success are tied to physical appearance, with ultra-thinness being the preferred state of health and beauty as well as the most important form of self-improvement.

This statement demonstrates that despite what designers and photographers say, “It’s just fashion…nothing to get all…steamed up about” (Bordo, 371), there is more behind the images. Ultra-thinness is being projected as most important, beautiful, and healthy, when in reality many of these models are starving themselves just shy of the point of physical collapse.

There is a reason behind the way beauty is portrayed by fashion designers today. Bordo explores the concept of the “profit motive,” and its role in the decisions of fashion designers. Obviously, “they want their images and the products associated with them to sell” (371), and they do not care about the means used to attain their goal. Women who are insecure about their bodies are the ones who will buy new clothes, beauty products, and diet aids, putting more money in the hands of the manufactures of these products. When the ideal of beauty is difficult to attain and maintain, this virtually guarantees the profit of cosmetic, diet, and clothing industries. Bordo also speaks of how we have been sucked into a “commercial war,” and how this war is not only affecting the clothing manufactures, but the entirety of society as well. While these fashion designers are serving their own selfish ends, individuals in society are being duped about what real beauty is.

This concept of “ideal beauty” is illustrated in a Dove film titled “Dove Beauty Evolution” (Piper). Part of their Campaign for Real Beauty, “Evolution” was launched by Unilever in 2006 to promote the newly created Dove Self-Esteem Fund. Time-lapse footage shows a normal, average-looking female who enters the studio to be “made-up” to become a model for a billboard advertising foundation makeup. Revealing the extent to which a person can be transformed by artificial means, this video shows how the media can alter the actual appearance of their models so that they become the picture of “ideal beauty” they are advocating. Gradually, this girl’s face is covered in make-up, fake eyelashes are applied, and her hair is styled. This is not all, though. Once the photo shoot is over, it is followed by extensive computer editing. The graphic artist progressively slims and elongates the model’s neck, enlarges her eyes and mouth, and changes her eye color. Now this girl who initially resembled the majority of the female population bears closer resemblance to a doll. She fulfills the media’s representation of beauty, but sets an impossible standard for the average female to attain. This could lower self-esteem when girls find they can never be as beautiful as the model on the billboard, not realizing that what they are seeing is not an accurate representation of the real person behind the makeup. It could also lead to health consequences including depression, eating disorders, plastic surgery, and maybe even suicide. The film concludes with the statement, “No wonder our perception of beauty is distorted.” This mirrors Bordo’s ideas about how fashion designers’ quest for profit influences our perception of “ideal beauty,” and leads to disastrous consequences for the young women of our society.

Facial attractiveness plays an important role in the assessment of beauty today. In their article, “Peer victimization as a mediator of the relation between facial attractiveness and internalizing problems,” from the Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Kurt Beron and others raise the topic of the role of facial attractiveness in an individual’s life. They reference a quote from a French realism writer in the 19th Century, which is still, if not more relevant today: “Beauty is the promise of happiness” (Stendhal, qtd. in Beron). Even almost 200 years ago, beauty was influential in individuals’ lives, and was predicted to be the difference between a happy or sad life. Now the social effect on an individual’s perception of beauty is indicated in how “unattractive individuals…[may] feel poorly about themselves as a result of appearance-based discrimination.” People are dependent on others for their self-concept, whether they realize it or not. This shows that it is largely the result of the influence of others that society’s definition of “beauty” can lead to happiness and “unattractiveness” to sadness.

Beauty’s influence in an individual’s life can be easily seen in high schools as well. Not long ago I attended a high school graduation. Afterwards, as I looked around the room filled with the recent graduates and their friends, I could see groups of people clustering around a graduate to congratulate that person. Noticeably, people gravitated to the individuals who stood out from the crowd as more beautiful or handsome. Those who were average or below average according to looks were more of the loners of the group. I would assume this would hold true in the midst of the school year as well. Certain individuals are regularly acknowledged by teachers and peers, and others go through each day virtually unnoticed. A distinct pattern in the relationship between attractiveness and popularity has developed. There is a scale of good looks in high school, even though it is implicit rather than explicit. Depending on where a teenager falls on that scale, their influence, popularity, and maybe even success, may be virtually decided for them by teachers and peers. The worth that is being placed on looks has resulted in consequences as varied as undue pressure to measure up, unfair advantage given to those who are naturally prettier, and inhibition of the progress of others who cannot attain society’s estimation of beauty.

Although this can be true, that does not mean that it is. People are not being forced to evaluate their self-worth through the eyes of the media. There is a healthy standard for self-confidence, and it is referenced in Judith Ortiz Cofer’s essay, “The Story of My Body.” She tells of growing up, and the struggles she had in respect to her self-image. She felt she was too skinny, and had an imperfect complexion because of an episode of chickenpox in her childhood. These were just a couple aspects that she did not like about her body. By the time she reached the end of her college years she had finally figured out her life. She states, “My studies, later my writing, the respect of people who saw me as an individual person they cared about, these were the criteria for my sense of self-worth” (341). Focusing on her accomplishments and inward character, she was able to move past her preoccupation with her outward appearance.

Individuals in society do not need to rely on the media to dictate how they should look. They can resist succumbing to the loss of self-esteem resulting from preoccupation with the image of beauty portrayed by the media. If they focus on other qualities, besides just outward appearance, this will set them free from their bondage to improving their physical appearance. When individuals ignore the messages of the media and instead focus on being content with who they really are on the inside, this will help them have a healthy and productive lifestyle.

 Works Cited

Beron, Kurt J., Lisa H. Rosen, and Marion K. Underwood. “Peer victimization as a             mediator of the relation between facial attractiveness and internalizing problems.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 57.3 (2011): 319+. Academic OneFile. Web. 22 Nov.  2011.

Bordo, Susan. “Never Just Pictures.” Seeing and Writing 4. Ed. Donald and Christina             McQuade. Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 561-73. Print.

Brown, Lora Beth, Steven R. Thomsen, and Michelle M. Weber. “The relationship             between reading beauty and fashion magazines and the use of pahtogenic [sic]             dieting methods among adolescent females.” Adolescence 37.145   (2002): 1+.             Academic OneFile. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.

Cofer, Judith Ortiz. “The Story of My Body.” Seeing and Writing 4. Ed. Donald and             Christina McQuade. Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 561-73. Print.

Piper, Tim. “Dove Evolution.” YouTube. YouTube, 6 Oct. 2006. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.

Posted on

On Natural Morality

Mel Gilbertson

 

What is morality? How do we know what is right and what is wrong, and why do we make that distinction in the first place? Morality is often seen as religious in nature, either as an innate, god-given gift or as a set of guidelines taught to us through religious texts like the Bible or the Qur’an. Moral philosopher Iris Murdoch suggests that the two are inevitably intertwined, for morality seeks its perfection in religion.[1] However, evidence suggests that morality has far more to do with biology than with religion. Morality does not require religion in order to develop; in fact, it is most likely a natural aspect of the human experience.

To begin with, let us clarify the definitions of “morality” and “religion.” In this context, morality is really shorthand for moral judgment — the ability to distinguish “right” from “wrong.” Ethical codes (e.g., the Ten Commandments) exist to assist this judging process. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, religion can be defined as “an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.” Religion is thus a particular type of belief system — a coherent set of beliefs that inform one’s view of the world. Secularism, atheism, agnosticism, and non-theistic spiritualities are also belief systems, but are not religions per this definition. Depending on how you define “organized,” some theistic spiritualities — including many kinds of paganism — may not be considered religions under this definition, either.

Firstly, if morality were indeed religious in nature, then it could not develop within these non-religious belief systems. No morality means no ethical codes or other guidelines for moral behavior. And yet, non-religious ethical codes exist. Secular humanism, an atheist philosophy, includes “the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, [and] responsibility” as well as rationality, justice, fairness, compassion, and tolerance among its list of core principles.[2] Confucianism, an agnostic philosophy codified by the Chinese teacher Kǒng Zǐ,[3] has the Five Constant Virtues of humaneness, justice, propriety, wisdom, and integrity.[4] Most Wiccans and some other pagans follow the Wiccan Rede, “an it harm none, do what thou wilt.”[5] Political and social ideologies usually include moral guidelines that their adherents are expected to follow — feminists believe that it is morally wrong to infringe on someone else’s bodily autonomy; vegans believe that it is morally wrong to cause harm to animals. These ethical standards would not exist without a moral drive.

So, if morality is not inherently religious, where does morality come from? The Moral Sense Test, a four-year study developed by researchers at Harvard and Georgetown University in which close to 9,000 participants evaluated and responded to hypothetical moral dilemmas, suggests that morality is innate.[6] In fact, on average, participants agreed with each other on the proper moral course of action in each scenario about 88% of the time. Religious factors played a very small role in the participant’s responses to most of the scenarios presented, and no role at all in others. The participant’s gender, level of education, and politics did not significantly impact their sense of morality, either, with most variables accounting for less than 5% variance. The uniformity of responses means that either morality relies on values that the study did not measure, or that a good portion of our sense of morality is innate.

Why, then, do people disagree about moral issues at all? Dr. Ingrid Storm of the University of Manchester conducted a study evaluating the relationship between moral values and religiosity in Europe between 1981 and 2008, during which time many European nations became more secular.[7] In this study, she made a critical distinction between two kinds or “dimensions” of moral values — the first group of values being those which prioritize either personal autonomy or traditional, group-centered consciousness, with the second group being those which prioritize either self-interest or social norms that have been generally accepted across cultures and eras (i.e., don’t murder, don’t steal, etc.). She found that the former group of moral values were highly variable across the population and that as religiosity declined, so too did traditional, group-centered values while personal autonomy values rose. On the other hand, socially normative values remained relatively constant over time and across the population regardless of religiosity. It is these core, steady values, specifically, which I argue are natural and innate, while one’s feelings on personal autonomy vs. traditional values are derivative and taught by institutions like religion and politics.

This division between innate and derivative morals also neatly accounts for the fluctuation of what is or isn’t considered socially acceptable across cultures and eras; in some cases, derivative morals are held to be more important or stronger than conflicting innate morals. For example, the Romans allowed slavery as part of the ius gentium or international law even though it conflicted with the well-recognized natural law that all humans are born free. This legal distinction indicates that they recognized that slavery was immoral but practiced it anyways. Religions, too, have been (and still are) used to justify derivative moral values even when they would otherwise be considered immoral. During the Crusades, for example, the murder of Muslims, Jews, and Orthodox Christians in the Holy Land was considered justified and absolvable by the Catholic Church even though the Ten Commandments include an injunction against murder. On the other hand, core religious concepts reflecting our innate moral values tend to be similar across religions. The most famous and widespread of these similarities is the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity, a moral injunction shared by the vast majority of religions and philosophies which encourages people to treat others with respect.

Another way to examine the nature of morality is to look to people whose sense of “right” and “wrong” is diminished or absent. Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), colloquially known as sociopathy, affects at least 0.6% of the U.S. population.[8] Psychopathy (as evaluated by the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version or PCL: SV) affects a similar percentage of people in the U.K.[9] Other studies estimate that sociopaths and psychopaths together make up about 1%-3% of the general population. Sociopaths have a sense of morality, but it is substantially different than most and they are more strongly influenced by self-interest. Psychopaths lack a sense of morality altogether and act purely out of self-interest.[10] Neither can empathize with others, although they can understand other’s emotions intellectually and can mimic empathy when it is in their interest to do so. Empathy is a key factor in the ability to make altruistic moral decisions, or decisions solely for the benefit of another. For example, let’s say you were to pass by a child drowning in a small pond. No one else is around, and intervening would save the child but your clothes would get wet. Is saving the child forbidden, permissible, or obligatory? This was one of the questions on the Moral Sense Test, and 97% of the participants agreed that saving the child is obligatory.[11] A sociopath or psychopath, however, would not save the child unless they saw it as beneficial to themselves in some way. Their self-interest and lack of empathy wins out over a diminished or absent sense of socially normative moral values. Because sociopathy and psychopathy are neurological variances that occur across all demographics, the logical conclusion is that morality is a neurological function.

The evidence is clear that our basic sense of morality is not religious in nature. So why is morality assumed to be religious? The belief that morals can only develop within a religious framework is a common source of discrimination against non-religious people. Indeed, this belief is so prevalent in our society that even atheists tend to be biased against other atheists.[12] One possible explanation is that most religions teach that their particular set of moral values are right and others are wrong, making no distinction between innate and derivative morals. Recognizing the non-religious nature of morality also means recognizing the virtues of other religions and non-religious belief systems as well as the failings of one’s own religion or belief system. How many of one’s moral assumptions are based on derivative or traditional morals, and to what degree might those conflict with one’s natural morals? How might one be judging others unfairly for not conforming to one’s moral standards? A non-religious concept of morality encourages tolerance and critical thinking in equal measure.

[1] Iris Murdoch, “Morality and Religion,” 1992, in A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers, 9th edition, ed. Lee A. Jacobus (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2013), 366, 370.

[2] “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles,” Council for Secular Humanism, accessed October 29, 2016, https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/12.

[3] “Master Kǒng,” the most common way he is referred to in Mandarin Chinese. “Confucius” is a latinization of Kǒng Fūzǐ, “grand master Kǒng.”

[4] These one-word translations are imprecise; please look into the original Chinese terms (rén, yì, lǐ, zhì, and xìn, respectively) if you wish to learn more.

[5] There are many variants of the Wiccan Rede, all essentially meaning that anything is permissible unless it causes harm to someone.

[6] Konika Banerjee, Marc Hauser, and Bryce Huebner, “Intuitive Moral Judgments are Robust across Variation in Gender, Education, Politics, and Religion: A Large-Scale Web-Based Study,” Journal of Cognition and Culture 10, no. 3 (2010): 253-81. doi:10.1163/156853710X531186.

[7] Ingrid Storm, “Morality in Context: A Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship between Religion and Values in Europe,” Politics and Religion 9, no. 1 (2016): 111-38. doi:10.1017/S1755048315000899.

[8] Ronald C. Kessler, Michael C. Lane, Mark F. Lenzenweger, and Armand W. Loranger, “DSM-IV Personality Disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication,” Biological Psychiatry 62, no. 6 (2007): 553–564. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.09.019.

[9] Jeremy Coid, Robert D. Hare, Amanda Roberts, Simone Ullrich, and Min Yang, “Prevalence and Correlates of Psychopathic Traits in the Household Population of Great Britain,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32, no. 2 (2009): 65-73. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.01.002

[10] This is but one model; in truth, the distinction between sociopathy and psychopathy (if any) is unclear as neither is an officially defined diagnosis. It is generally accepted that sociopathy correlates to ASPD, but even that is debated by some. Some researchers believe that the only significant difference between sociopathy and psychopathy is that the latter is inborn while the former develops in youth. Others view the two along a spectrum, with psychopathy representing an extreme form of sociopathy.

[11] Peter Singer and Marc Houser, “Godless Morality,” Project Syndicate, January 4, 2006, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/godless-morality

[12] Will M. Gervais, “Everything Is Permitted? People Intuitively Judge Immorality as Representative of Atheists,” PLoS ONE 9, no. 4 (2014): e92302. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092302

Posted on

Wind Energy: Risk vs. Reward

Molly Campbell

 

In a world where climate change is a real and serious problem, governments and environmental organizations are on a desperate search for clean, green energy sources. Harnessing energy from wind is one of the cleanest methods of generating power because it does not produce pollution or greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. It is abundant and infinitely renewable, and is considered by many environmental scientists to be a viable alternative to fossil fuels and, potentially, a solution to the global climate change issue. However, like any developing technology, this method of power generation has consequences that must be explored and taken into consideration. Wind energy production has serious negative environmental impacts and poses health risks for humans and animals, and for these reasons it cannot be considered a safe or sustainable way of powering cities.

At first glance, it is easy to say that wind energy is an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide emissions for electricity generated from fossil fuels are estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.0 pounds per kilowatt-hour, and for coal generated electricity, estimates are between 1.4 and 3.6 pounds. Wind turbines only produce 0.02 to 0.04 pounds of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour; at least fifteen times less carbon dioxide than fossil fuels and at least 35 times less than coal (Environmental). However, this is without regard to the amount of land that is required for the production of this wind energy. A recent survey by the United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory reports that wind facilities use anywhere from thirty to 141 acres of land per megawatt hour of power generated, more than coal or fossil fuels (Environmental). Because wind turbines must be placed five to ten rotor diameters apart (Environmental), and the average rotor diameter of current utility scale wind turbines is 116 metres (Anatomy), there is a significant amount of wasted space between turbines in a wind energy facility, space that could be better used through a different energy production method. In a recent study based out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it was discovered that one-third of the projected electricity demands of the United States in 2050 could be generated with solar energy on 11,000 square kilometres of land or with nuclear energy on 1,489 square kilometres (Jenkins). Doing this with wind energy would require 66,576 square kilometres (Jenkins). Trying to meet the world’s energy demands with wind is not practical or sustainable. While it is true that the planet will never run out of wind, it will eventually run out of open space needed to harvest this wind. Tens of thousands of acres of forest would need to be cleared, resulting in the destruction of the habitats of countless wildlife species. The natural environment that would be destroyed is worth more than the clean energy that could be produced.

The risks posed to animals because of this energy harnessing method are too great to be ignored. The large, fast-moving blades of wind turbines are very dangerous to flying animals, specifically birds and bats. Many species are at risk of being killed either by the blades or by the drastic changes in air pressure surrounding the turbines (Farmers). Bird experts say that this could cause a chain reaction across North America or potentially on a global scale because many of the at-risk species are migratory birds (Farmers). Supporters of wind energy argue that the safety of birds and bats is taken into account and assessed during the construction of each facility, but according to BirdLife International Scientist Raul Ortiz-Pulido these tests are only run with a few wind turbines over a very brief time period (Farmers). Because the research is done on such a small scale there is a fairly minor injurious effect on avian species, many scientists and wind energy activists consider it negligible. However, a negative effect during such a short amount of time and with very few turbines is going to grow exponentially once the wind facility is operating at its maximum capacity for an indefinite time frame. It is the long term effect that will be detrimental; many species of bats and birds could eventually face extinction if enough wind power continues to grow in popularity as an energy source. Wind harnessing facilities are placing birds and bats in direct danger of injury and death and therefore are not an acceptable energy alternative.

It is not only birds and bats, though, that are threatened by wind harnessing facilities. Wind turbines have been shown to cause a variety of symptoms in humans, which together make up what is known by some as “wind turbine syndrome” (Campbell). These symptoms are the result of constant low-frequency noise, the shadow flicker effect from the blades, and electromagnetic radiation emissions and include sleep disturbances, headache, nausea, dizziness, increased blood pressure, weight changes, irregular heart rhythms, mood problems, chronic fatigue, depression, and tinnitus (Campbell). Dr. Albert Aniel, a physician, explains some of these problems and warns, “With low frequency noise, primarily generated by turbines, people feel that they must breathe at that rate, causing loss of balance, dizziness, and psychiatric disorders” (Adams). Because the emissions of the turbines and the way that individuals perceive them are both highly variable, some scientists argue that these symptoms cannot be considered a real medical condition and are not direct evidence that wind turbines adversely affect human health (Information Paper). Nonetheless, the fact that people living in close proximity to wind facilities have experienced these negative effects cannot simply be ignored. Whether or not all medical professionals and environmental scientists choose to accept this research as evidence, it is verifiably true that wind turbines make people sick. If wind energy use continues to grow, the number of people affected will grow even more quickly due to the increasingly large area occupied by wind turbines. Eliminating greenhouse gas emissions while sacrificing public health is not a reasonable solution to the climate change issue; this trade-off would do our world more harm than good.

The risks of wind energy are not worth the reward. Energy from non-renewable resources can be replaced with energy from wind, however this comes at a great cost— too great a cost to be considered a viable option. Powering the world with wind would mean giving up thousands and thousands of acres of land. It would mean threatening countless types of birds and bats with extinction, potentially leading to a world-wide wildlife crisis as migratory species are killed off. It would mean jeopardizing the health of the public. Ultimately, the negative consequences of wind energy far outweigh its benefits. So, what is the solution to the global climate change issue? It isn’t fossil fuels, and it isn’t coal. Maybe it’s solar energy, or maybe it’s nuclear energy. Maybe it has yet to be found. But it isn’t wind.

 

 

Works Cited

Adams, Eileen M. “Pros and cons of wind energy debated.” Tribune Business News. 5 Feb. 2010. Proquest. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

“Anatomy of a Wind Turbine.” American Wind Energy Association. 2013. Web. 22 Nov. 2015. Campbell, Jackie, BScPharm, L.L.B. “Wind Energy and Health Effects.” Pharmacy Practice. 2010. Proquest. Web. 2 Dec. 2015.

“Environmental Impacts of Wind Power.” Union of Concerned Scientists. 5 Mar. 2013. Web. 20 Nov. 2015

“Farmers and Scientists Consider Risks in Developing Wind Energy; source: IPS].” Noticias Financerias. 02 Mar. 2007. Proquest. Web. 02 Dec. 2015.

“Information Paper: Evidence on Wind Farms and Human Health.” National Health and Medical Research Council. Feb. 2015. Web. 03 Dec. 2015.

Jenkins, Jesse. “How Much Land Does Solar, Wind, and Nuclear Energy Require?” The Energy Collective. 24 June 2015. Web. 22 Nov. 2015.