Biology

Should the concept of zoos be nullified?

 

The general concern regarding zoos is that animals are kept in captivity there. Thus, it is not their natural habitat and they are not able to go whenever they want. What is more, people come to the zoo to look at animals which may be quite disturbing for animals themselves as well as violate their privacy.

Yet, there is another aspect to take into consideration. The thing is that there are lots of zoos the conditions of which are exceptional. Thus, every animal has a lot of personal space. What is more, a properly organized zoo is a great place for researchers and scientists to do their job and to make the life of animals better. Apart from that, zoos do a lot in order to prevent the extinction of species. In such a way, they help our planet a lot, to say nothing for the fact that animals at the zoos do not have the fear of being killed by other animals or even hunted by people. Zoo employees do their best to make the life of animals as comfortable as possible.

How do animals become extinct?

 

 

Though Earth is densely packed with living beings, the greater part of the species that ever existed on it has become extinct. Yet before humans started spilling oil into the sea and depleting ozone layer with greenhouse gasses, species died out for certain logical natural reasons. After all, overpopulation is a threat not only to humans, and animals have their own mechanisms to regulate populations.

Climate change is one of the most trustworthy explanations for the extinction of species. About 11,000 years ago, megafauna mammals failed to adapt to a sudden climate change. It is also likely that instead of food, dinosaurs faced early humans that presented more of a threat than food to gigantic reptiles. Anyway, megafauna species by no means could survive in this new environment that formed on Earth, and their extinction made way for present-day reptiles and amphibians.

Several more reasons of natural extinction can be derived from climate change. These are a lack of food, lack of genetic diversity, predation of better-adapted species, unbearable weather conditions, and an invasion of disease. The evidence of meteor strikes is another popular theory to explain the extinction of pre-historic species.

With such a broad evidence that nature regulates populations itself, we cannot deny the impact of humans on the degradation of species. Construction and industrial activity deprive animals of their natural habitat, and the lucky ones have to migrate. Some species that have no alternative habitat (such as polar bears) can simply die out as glaciers melt. A huge human responsibility lies on pollution. If we cannot take away resources from marine species, we can still pollute them. And that  is not the activity to be proud of.

Reasons why some people deny global warming

 

 

The signs of global warming are incontestable, yet, the global community is not unequivocal about its existence. The entire segment of leaders, including politicians, big business owners, and all kinds of climate skeptics, turn a blind eye to the issue, explaining that there is nothing but weather. To many people, such a behavior looks quite weird, nevertheless, psychologists claim it to be quite logical. But what is the logic behind the denial of truly obvious things?

In the first place, non-believers have a certain set of beliefs and ignore information that can undermine them. No one wants to be wrong, and people always stick to information that confirms their point rather than contradicts it. The phenomenon is called the confirmation bias that emerges out of the fear to different views. Assuming that the other perspectives may be true, people come to the cognitive dissonance that disrupts their inner harmony and causes discomfort.

In addition, high-profile climate skeptics increase chances for distrust. The influence does not always belong to those who back their words with a solid evidence; so often it comes to people who can persuade and make a show. Such influential skeptics ease the tension created by environmentalists claiming that all this climate-change-thing is an artificially created response.

Confirmed non-believers nurture their views with the help of their opinion allies. Commonly, people expose themselves only to information that circulates in their social group, which excludes the alternative beliefs.

Talking about climate change, we shall bear in mind that some groups take activity of environmentalists as a threat to their business. Depending on fossil fuels so much, corporations will not confess in causing damage. A part of politicians does not need all the environment-related restrictions either.

We should prohibit all off-shore drilling until oil companies can prove that drilling disasters won’t happen again

 

 

Offshore drilling is not our last hope for oil yet but the world is striding towards the complete exhaustion of fossil fuels. Companies that understand that try to get an access to shelf oil first to make their business more secure and outrun competitors. However, the oil business is always dangerous as no one can exclude the possibility of spillages. After the “Deepwater Horizon” disaster, President Obama put a range of restrictions on offshore drilling in several states. In 2016, the ex-President together with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau facilitated the ban of new offshore drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. Though today President Trump is already targeting the restrictions imposed by Obama, there is little possibility of lifting the permanent ban so far.

While oil spillages damage to marine ecosystems, eco-friendly bans pose a threat to business owners. Advocates of responsible offshore drilling underline that turning away from extra sources of oil makes no sense for the economy. In times when oil prices play the first fiddle for all the remaining commodities, we cannot ignore drilling, say companies. And though all giants of the industry promise to make their practices more responsible, environmentalists know that such a scenario is hardly realistic. As long as there is drilling, spillages will continue to happen.

If we take threats to the renewable ecosystems seriously, we shall advocate the ban on offshore drilling. From the economic perspective, we are too much dependent on fossil fuels. If all the oil is wasted, we would have to search for renewables to back our economy anyway. Probably, we shall concentrate on alternative sources of energy today to have a safe tomorrow.

Will Ice Age repeat again?

 

 

Despite the Ice Age with woolly mammoths and saber-toothed cats ended about 12,000 years ago, there is an evidence that periods of a long-lasting cooling happened to Earth much later. The Maunder Minimum was a period of low solar activity that occurred between the 17th and the 18th century and was characterized with no splashes on the Sun’s surface.

NASA researchers argue that periods of “sun-still” happen regularly throughout the history. It is known that solar activity is not smooth all the time. The periods of activity are normally changed with quiet phases that are characterized by few sunspots and flares. The active phase of Sun is about 11 years, but none of the solar cycles is the exact replica of the previous one.

According to the NASA research team member, Prof. Valentina Zharkova, solar activity will fall to 40 percent in the 2030s. It will equal the “mini Ice Age” observed during the 17th century when most rivers froze over for decades. Researchers claim that in the period from 2030 to 2040, two solar waves occurring in opposite hemispheres will splash disruptively and make the solar activity as low as it was during the Maunder Minimum.

However fantastic the idea of a “mini Ice Age” may seem, solar physicists are quite sure about the solar rhythms they have discovered. Their observations closely match the data on previous minimums, which allows to assume that another minimum is yet to come. Obviously, the temperatures will be far higher than in the real Ice Age but also lower than average temperatures on the globe.

Genetically Modified Foods – what’s the outcome?

 

 

GM crops have raised enough concerns since the invention of gene technology. Some countries imposed a ban on import of GM products that are suspected in all sorts of threat. In fact, the hype around GMO appeared mostly because of uncertainty. Though modified crops are under the close watch of quality control specialists, the long-term effect on consumers cannot be predicted precisely. Therefore, countries prefer to stay cautious about products with dubious properties. In the meantime, the notoriety of GM crops is pressing on consumers in countries with lax governmental regulations as people do not wish to be the victims of technology.

Among the greatest concerns of GM crops, we distinguish their ability to cause allergic reactions, transfer genes, and cross out uncontrollably. GMO are suspected to cause an allergy if they got genes from typical allergens. Transfer of such genes is actually discouraged. According to Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, no GM crops currently present on the market are marked as allergenic.

Transfer of genes poses risk for other living beings if artificially inserted genes are inherited by the consumer’s organism, namely by humans. Genes responsible for antibiotic resistance are the matter of the utmost concern. Though the probability of transfer is low, the use of antibiotic resistance genes in agriculture is restricted.

Outcrossing refers to the ability of inserted genes to mix up uncontrollably with genes that naturally occur in plants and animals. The research has shown that some of the genes were found in organisms that contacted with GM crops. Therefore, people can be exposed to GM food merely consuming naturally-bred plants.

As for now, GM food available on the international market is marked as safe for consumers. WHO and FAO do not report about any threat concerning GM products currently in use.

The process of preparing for an effective interview

 

 

All applicants need to prepare to their interview even if they are very experienced and precious employees. Most of them will not go to the interview if they do not like the job, therefore, people are interested in making a good first impression at least on the recruiting specialist. Having a successful interview is not only about showing one’s proficiency or experience; it is also about expressing one’s potential to be a pleasant colleague and an effective team member. Therefore, just having a huge experience, you do not make an employer like you automatically.

Preparing for an interview, we have to revise our everyday habits.  We express about 80% of information through non-verbal communication or the manner of speaking and listening. And we frequently do not notice if something is wrong with our behavior. Ask family or friends, which of your habits may irritate the interviewer. Apparently, you cannot get rid of old habits in a night before the interview but at least you will try to avoid some actions such as shaking legs nervously under the table or scratching the nose every time you feel unconfident.

To prove yourself being a great employee, think about actions you can take deliberately. Explore the employer’s profile and the philosophy of their company. Pay attention to the qualities they particularly search for in applicants. Think of your attire in advance to look and feel confident. If your employer is not a governmental institution or some other highly-serious company, there is no point dressing very smart black suite – white shirt clothes. Choose more realistic smart casual style that will be appropriate almost everywhere. And do not feel as if this job is the last one on the planet.

Impact of technology on interpersonal communication

 

 

Interpersonal communication is a comprehensive category that includes workplace, group, intimate, and romantic interaction. Influenced by the Internet and its advantages, communication in all these spheres has largely transformed. 90% of individuals irrespective of their lifestyles are present on social networks every day. Each of us is accessible to the others every time. Our boss, spouse or completely unknown person can contact us whenever they need. People do not hesitate to interact, they cannot see any limits to communication now. And many of them find this exact factor discouraging.

A vast sociological research conducted in the US confirmed that the increase in wealth and quality of life caused higher isolation among Americans. Constant online accessibility made communication such a routine thing you want to avoid. Many people got tired of empty chatting that took their time and did not give back anything in particular. Under the impact of technology, we became lazier: why go hang out with peers if you are already connected online?

To put some advantages of technology, it simplified business communication. In many cases, you need only safe online connection to work productively and report your progress to the manager. Even in traditional offices, communicating per e-mail sufficiently accelerates performance. Technology has simplified interaction between a provider of services and their clients. In most cases, clients do not even need to communicate with the provider to get their services.

As a result, the impact of technology on interaction is diverse. We cannot address online channels of communication as a negative phenomenon because we gain even more than we loose with the Internet. In fact, the culture of communication is individual to all people, and those who use the net responsibly never complain about how dramatically the technology has changed their lives.